Preamble

The House meet at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Motor Vehicles (Exports)

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the export of vehicles in September, 1956, was the lowest for that month for six years; why car exports were 30 per cent. below the level of September, 1955, and those of commercial vehicles 28 per cent. lower than last year; and whether he will make a statement on the Government's plan to reverse this process.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The main causes of the decline in exports of motor vehicles this year have been import restrictions in some of the industry's principal export markets. More than two-thirds of the fall in September can be attributed to the Australian and New Zealand markets alone. In addition there has been intensive foreign competition in overseas markets generally. Nevertheless, in the first nine months of this year exports of commercial vehicles were only 1·8 per cent. lower than for the first nine months of 1955. The motor manufacturers are well aware of the need to increase their exports and of the willingness of the Board of Trade to give them as much help as possible.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister says that motor manufacturers are aware of the need for increased production. Can he tell us something tangible about what his Department intends to do? Because of petrol rationing, many hon. Members, including myself, have constituents who are unemployed. There will not be so many cars wanted on the home market. Surely that is a wonderful opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to assist those manufacturers to increase exports.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that selling motor cars is a matter for the motor car industry and that no amount of Government assistance is a substitute for competitiveness in overseas markets.

Exports (Oversea Publicity)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what help is given by his Department to enable exporters to obtain publicity for their products abroad.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The facilities of the Overseas Information Services are freely available to all exporters who can provide the Board of Trade with material of news value. In addition, the Board and overseas posts will advise exporters about advertising agents and methods in particular markets.

Mr. Russell: If I understand my right hon. Friend correctly, his officers provide industries with information about opportunities for their products. Cannot those officers help industries on their own initiative, without waiting for the industries to ask them?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Overseas Information Services disseminate material of news value. On the general question of advertising, we cannot, of course, advise manufacturers how to advertise their goods. That is their own choice. We can advise them about agents and about particular problems in particular markets.

Films and Tobacco (Imports from United States)

Dr. Bennett: asked the President of the Board of Trade under what agreements and contracts Her Majesty's Government is compelled to obtain the present supplies from the United States of America of cinematograph films and of tobacco for which dollars must be expended; and whether he will reduce the scale on which these imports are licensed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to reduce dollar expenditure on films and tobacco.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is no compulsion upon British importers to buy American films. Moreover, a special


limit is placed, in agreement with the American film companies, on the earnings from films which can be remitted to the United States of America. In the case of tobacco, manufacturers have already bought and paid for the American supplies they were permitted to buy from this year's crop. The question of imports from next year's crop does not arise until July, 1957.

Dr. Bennett: While understanding that exports must provide the wherewithal to pay for the imports from any country, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would not be considerably helpful to our trade if we could get these not entirely vital materials from, say, Rhodesia, which can produce more, with easier terms of trade that relieve us of embarrassment for dollars?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a very large-scale substitution of American tobacco by Rhodesian tobacco since the war. I am perfectly prepared to consider whether that could be carried further. However, it does not arise immediately. This year's crop has already been bought.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Now that we are scraping the bottom of the barrel for dollars, what are the Government doing to see that dollars are not wasted on inessential goods or goods obtainable from non-dollar sources? I agree that we have commitments but, subject to those commitments, what else are the Government doing about the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question relates to films and tobacco. In regard to films, there is an agreed limit as to the amount of dollars that can be transferred across exchanges. In respect of tobacco, there has been a large-scale substitution.

Mr. G. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider revising the film quota so as to allow more British films to be shown?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that a mere alteration in the quota would of itself ensure more British films being shown. First, they would have to be produced. That is the purpose of a Bill which is shortly to be introduced.

Packets and Bottles (Weight Fluctuations)

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the economic situation, and the possible increase in the cost of living, he will take steps now, to implement some of the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee, particularly weight fluctuations in packets and bottles, and contents of all goods sold in boxes, and so achieve some stability of prices.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mrs. Mann: Is the President aware of how disappointed I am with that reply? Does he know that there is general disappointment at the hesitation of the Government to introduce the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee? Could he say when he is likely to introduce some of the recommendations?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Not this Session, but those recommendations have nothing to do with the stabilisation of prices.

Mr. Bottomley: Was not that Committee a very responsible Committee which did excellent work, and for the Government to ignore that work is not complimentary to those on the Committee?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, the Committee has done a good job. The reason for this delay is not concerned with any question of not being complimentary to the Committee, which did very good work on complex and difficult problems; it is because there would not be time to introduce a major Bill of this character this Session.

Middle East (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade the present policy on granting licences for shipments of military and para-military equipment to Middle Eastern States.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The United Nations Resolution of 2nd November calls upon member States to refrain from introducing military goods into the area of hostilities. We have complied with this recommendation. The export of


arms and equipment is permitted to countries towards which we have treaty obligations and to other friendly States.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the President for that reply, may I ask whether it would not be wise policy to stop shipping arms to any Middle East countries, at any rate until the situation has clarified? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no arms are being shipped to countries whose Governments have declared hostility to the existence of Israel?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question to the Foreign Secretary.

Price Controls

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade what powers he still retains to impose price controls; and if he will use these powers to prevent profiteering from shortages, following the Suez crisis.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is power to control the price of a small number of commodities under Defence Regulation 55AB. I do not expect any general shortages or profiteering in the field for which I am responsible.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that the President is not going to use any price control powers at all? Is it not implied from the appeal of the Chancellor to businessmen that there is profiteering, or that there is going to be profiteering? Is it not quite clear from that statement that some price increases are not now justified and, therefore, that the President should take action to stop that happening?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The price control powers which I have are limited to a small number of commodities. As the hon. Member is aware, price control is operated on iron and steel scrap and in a few cases of that kind, but I do not intend to take wider powers.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of statements made by a number of his hon. Friends yesterday that manufacturers and traders are now tending to put up prices because of the increase in distribution charges because of the oil tax and other reasons? In view view of the appeal of the Chancellor, to

which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has drawn attention, does not the President think that the best way to stop the tendency to put up prices here, there and everywhere is to use price control?

Mr. Thorneycroft: One way to stop it will be for all of us not to exaggerate the increases of prices which have taken place or we can well create an atmosphere in which everybody will go in panic for increased prices. The movement has been quite small.

Mr. Rhodes: Would the right hon. Gentleman get his Department to watch very closely the price of oils other than hydrocarbon oils because at the moment those oils are being chalked up at prices which can get very high indeed without being noticed? Will he watch that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly, Sir.

Steel Plate Production (Additional Capacity)

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Iron and Steel Board on the construction of a new plate mill.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am discussing steel plate production with the Iron and Steel Board and attention is being given to effecting an expansion of capacity. The Iron and Steel Board is considering some projects for additional plate capacity, but is not yet in a position to make an announcement.

Mr. Albu: In view of the time it will take to construct a new plate mill and the very largely increased demands there will be for plate for super-tankers, for the atomic energy programme and oil storage, does not the President think the time has come when we should introduce some method of allocation in accordance with priorities, if we are not to have very severe economic difficulties?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think a large-scale allocation scheme would really help at present. What is important is that we should have new capacity and I am discussing that with the Iron and Steel Board, which will make an announcement when it is ready.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is this new capacity proposed to be with an existing firm, or


will it be under the powers which the Minister has to set it up under his Department, if he so wishes?

Mr. Thorneyeroft: Perhaps the hon. Member will await an announcement by the Board.

Middle East Situation (Commodity Supplies and Prices)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what commodities, other than oil, are likely to be scarce or reduced in supply owing to the blocking of the Suez Canal and Middle East disturbance; to what extent this will involve increased prices of retail goods dependent on supplies of raw materials that must now be transported to this country by alternative routes.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Supplies of imported commodities, other than oil, are not likely to be seriously reduced, although there may be some delays in arrivals. The price of imported materials constitutes only a part of the final cost, and the rise in freight rates should not greatly affect retail price of manufactured goods.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the President taken any action to see that whatever increase there may be is not exaggerated by those who have control at some intervening point?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I am sure he is right in sayine that we should not exaggerate these things.

Mr. Sorensen: That is not the point at all.

United Kingdom and Egypt

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what trade pacts or agreements existed between this country and Egypt and Middle-East Arab countries, respectively; to what extent these have been abrogated or renounced; and to what extent, in volume and value, our export trade to that area and our import trade, particularly in raw materials, has been affected.

Mr. P. Thomeycroft: The only trade agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the countries to which the hon. Member refers is the Anglo-Egyptian

understanding of 1930 on most-favoured-nation treatment, which has not been abrogated or renounced. The rest of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Overseas Trade Fairs (Committee)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future policy to be followed by Her Majesty's Government at world trade fairs.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The Exhibitions Advisory Committee, which, as I told the House on 31st October, has been reconstituted under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, is examining various aspects of policy on overseas trade fairs and I shall await its views before deciding on any changes that may be desirable.

Mr. Bottomley: Cannot the President ask the Committee to expedite its decision? Trade fairs will be starting early in the New Year, and unless we have a better policy than we have had in the past, we shall do as miserably as we have done since the present Government came into power.

Mr. Thorneycroft: We have broadly carried on the policy adopted by the right hon. Member when he was in power. I do not deny that there may be room for improvement. All I suggest is that we should await the views of this Committee before changing the policy.

Argentine Meat Imports (New Zealand Representations)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has given to the representations by the New Zealand Government concerning the importation of meat from the Argentine.

Mr. P. Thomeycroft: We drew attention to the fact that New Zealand has now a much bigger share of our total meat imports, both by quantity and value, than before the war; and we said that we have no reason to expect any substantial change in the level of meat imports in the near future.

Mr. Bottomley: Is not the New Zealand Government disturbed because more and more imports are coming in? The President of the Board of Trade will


recollect that the Australian Government made the same representations, with the ultimate bad results to our country which resulted in the new Agreement? The New Zealand Government will be taking similar steps. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman stop that now?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not sure what the right hon. Member has in mind, but the New Zealand share of the market, both in quantity and value, is larger than it was before the war. The Australian problem was quite a different one. It was based, not on meat, but on wheat, and the share of the market had declined, not increased.

Mr. Bottomley: If there is an improvement in trade with both those countries, that is due to bulk purchase and longterm trade agreements under the Labour Government. May I ask the President whether he does not expect the New Zealand Government to be as awkward in the future as the Australian Government have been in the past, because of lack of action on the part of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Thomeycroft: I would not accept that either of these two very friendly Commonwealth Governments have been in the least bit awkward in any way.

Mr. Russell: Is there any reason why we should not take as much as New Zealand is able to let us have up to the limit of our consumption?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I said, we are taking very much more than we did before.

Hire-Purchase Deposits

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the Manchester Court decision of 5th December in which his Department was concerned, and the further evidence supplied by the hon. Member for Coatbridge that moneylenders are defeating his regulations in respect of hire-purchase deposits, he will now take steps to secure compliance with the intention of his credit restriction policy.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I propose to lay before the House shortly Orders dealing with loans made by arrangement with the dealer for the payment of deposits and advance rentals.

Factory Building and Extensions (Development Areas)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his present policy regarding factory building in Development Areas.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The policy remains as it was at the time of the statement by my hon. and learned Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary on 5th June, when answering a similar Question by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).

Mr. Willey: Is the President aware that that statement caused a great deal of concern? Is he further aware that there is a general feeling in the Development Areas that there is an absolute standstill in Development Area policy at the moment? Would the President deny that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree that there has been economy exercised in Government building in the Development Areas.

Mr. Burke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the north-east Lancashire Development Area sites are available, labour is available, and all that is wanting is some factory building?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear in mind conditions in north-east Lancashire.

Commander Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend say how the percentage of unemployment compares with the rest of the country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think it is 1·5 per cent. in north-east Lancashire compared with just over 1 per cent. in other areas.

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for the provision of new Government factories or extensions under the Distribution of Industry Act in the North-East Development Area have been granted in the past six months.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Two, Sir.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that this is quite inadequate? If there is a general slow-down in building, there is a particular need for development policy. We expect him to show greater interest in this matter and to promote and encourage more building activities in Development Areas.

Mr. Thorneycroft: At the same time, I think all forms of Government expenditure must be closely watched. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. All forms of Government expenditure need to be closely watched, and this is an expenditure which cannot altogether escape attention.

Mr. Albu: What is the policy with respect to those factories in Development Areas which are closed down due to the Government's credit policy, with work being withdrawn into the main factories of the companies concerned?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is a fairly high demand for factories in the Development Areas, but if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I will certainly look at it.

Industrial Output (Oil Supplies)

Mr. Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade by what percentage he estimates British output will be cut when oil supplies are reduced by 20 per cent. on 1st January.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The reduction in oil supplies by 20 per cent. from 1st January will apply only to gas/diesel oils. The cut on fuel oils will remain for the time being at 10 per cent. No precise estimate of the effect on industrial output of this further cut of gas/diesel oils is possible, but it is thought that the effect will not be very great.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister tell the House how those firms which, for obvious reasons, are saving all the diesel oil possible, can cut their oil consumption by 20 per cent. without cutting their output and production?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There may be some cut in output, which will vary very much from firm to firm. I understand that a questionnaire has been sent out by the Ministry of Fuel and Power to the firms concerned, so that they will have an opportunity of stating the effect in each instance.

Mr. H. Wilson: Are not the Government being far too complacent about the effects of their policy on industrial production? Is not this a parallel to the complacency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the economic debate five weeks ago, when he gave the impression that there was very little harm to our

economy, whereas now we see day by day very serious harm? Will the right hon. Gentleman not get out of his head the idea that it is possible to cut the import of raw materials without a very serious effect on production?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think we want to take a sensible position in this matter. We do not want to underestimate the problem which must arise if oil is short. At the same time, we do not want to slide into the much more dangerous opposite position of exaggerating all our difficulties, which would undoubtedly do grave harm to the economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Premium Savings Bonds

Sir N. Hulbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of Premium Bonds sold up to midnight, 1st December.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The number of £1 units sold up to the end of November was 46½ million.

Sir N. Hulbert: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with this very excellent result?

Mr. Brooke: The Treasury is never satisfied, but we are very pleased.

Mr. H. Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comment in most financial journals that a considerable part of those purchases were made by taxpayers in the Surtax class because they provide a reasonable inducement to them that they will do better out of this tax-free prize than with ordinary lending? Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the Treasury estimates that these sales are mere diversions from other forms of saving and not a net increase in savings?

Mr. Brooke: What gives me satisfaction is that these new Premium Bonds are proving popular with all classes of people and that the figure of savings remaining outstanding is higher at this moment than ever before.

Egypt (Expelled British Subjects)

Mr. Gough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government will institute a fund, out of blocked


Egyptian assets, to provide for British subjects taking refuge in this country as a result of expulsion by the Egyptian Government.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) on 4th December and to the statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made in the course of his speech on 6th December.

Mr. Gough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be prepared to release the Egyptian dominated accounts in this country belonging to British subjects, normally resident in Egypt, who are now here as a result of the actions of the Egyptian Government, subject to the proviso that such sums shall only be spent or invested in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Walker-Smith: When these returned British subjects declare that they intend to live permanently in the United Kingdom or any country other than Egypt, their sterling assets will no longer be subject to the restrictions imposed on the accounts of residents of Egypt. Where they are not proposing to settle permanently outside Egypt, reasonable facilities for drawing on their sterling assets are allowed.

Mr. Gough: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that at the moment some of these people are suffering critical difficulties? Will he not agree to waive that rule for the time being in order to allow them, at least temporarily, to have some of this money, which is their own, in order to start in business in this country?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend appreciates that a British subject home from Egypt who is not prepared to declare that he intends to live permanently outside Egypt is nevertheless allowed to draw on his Egyptian sterling account at the rate of up to £100 a week and, in addition, to draw for miscellaneous purchases, such as the purchase of a house in this country in which to stay for the present.

Mr. Paget: Considering that they are innocent victims of this disaster, could not we send them to Jamaica for a holiday?

Mr. Nicholson: In order to make the position quite clear, will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that Egyptian assets are in no case being paid over to the Egyptian Government at the present moment?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that is well known, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning it.

Purchase Tax (Motor Cars)

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be prepared to consider a temporary reduction in the Purchase Tax on cars as a special measure to help the industry in its present difficulties.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir.

Miss Burton: As the Financial Secretary himself said that the penalties which we have to bear are strictly limited and temporary, and as, furthermore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us of his determination keep up industry, is it not fair to ask for something to be done for the motor car industry, which is suffering solely because of the policies of this Government?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that the car manufacturers will take every opportunity of increasing their sales in markets which are not affected by the fuel shortage. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has been evolving new techniques specially designed to support aggressive sales campaigns and is ready to place all its facilities at the disposal of the manufacturers.

Miss Burton: If the right hon. Gentleman's remarks do not seem to seep into the minds of the motor manufacturers and Coventry men are thrown out of work, will he be prepared to look at some alternative suggestion?

Mr. Brooke: I am always ready to consider all suggestions, but I do not think that that contained in the Question is a good one.

Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Cost of Living)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his Department's estimate of 1s. 5d. per gallon on the price of petrol increasing the cost of living by one-third of one point took


into account the increases that will arise in distribution costs of milk, bread, coal, vegetables, and meat, the increase in the cost of bread, where this is produced by oil-fired stoves, and the increased rates of local borough councils.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state in detail how he has arrived at his calculation that the increased cost of petrol will cause an increase of less than one-third of a point in the cost-of-living index.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On 4th December my right hon. Friend gave an estimate that the increase in the duty on petrol and similar hydrocarbon oils by 1s. 0d. a gallon would increase the cost of living by less than one-third of a point. This took into account both the items in the index into which the cost of petrol and other dutiable oils enters ascertainably, that is, private motoring and travel by bus.
It is not possible to calculate exactly what the indirect effect on the cost of living arising from increased distribution costs might be. Apart from technical difficulties of computation it would depend on the extent to which the additional costs can be absorbed without affecting retail prices. My right hon. Friend is, however, satisfied that it must be very small.
There is, I may add, no duty on fuel oil used, for example, in bakeries.

Mr. Lewis: That was with reference to the Is. tax. The Minister will agree that there has been a further increase of 5d. and that almost every week this year the Government have come forward with new increases and said, "This will mean only a small increase in the cost of living." That is what they have said, whether it has concerned rents, prescriptions or petrol. Surely the Minister can give some idea of what the position will be in the next two or three months?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Question relates to the estimate of one-third of one point in respect of the petrol duty. That one-third of one point is the estimate in relation to the duty, and the duty only; and that is the basis on which my right hon. Friend made his estimate of one-third of one point. Taking into account the other matters,

it is increased to the neighbourhood of one-half of one point, as I think the hon. Member knows.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that I was present when the Chancellor made his amazing calculation. I regret that it was not possible for the Chancellor to see the pained expressions behind him. Nevertheless, the statement has been made. Can the Minister give an undertaking that if any firms make a "phoney" excuse of an increase in the price of petrol for raising prices substantially, the Government will take action against such unpatriotic firms?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the statistics show that the rise in the cost of living is very small, or relatively small, and includes both the increase in duty and the increase in the commercial price of petrol. I am sure that that is a consideration which will be borne in mind by all concerned.

Mr. Jay: Does the half of a point assume that none of the traders concerned will add more to the final price than the 1s. 5d. which is strictly justified?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It includes the 5d. increase in the commercial price for private motoring, and was based also on the hypothesis that all bus operators would raise their fares by the maximum allowed, so in that respect it is a pessimistic calculation.

Mr. Jay: But does it assume that none of the traders will add on more than the 1s. 5d. which is strictly justified?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It does not include any figure above that.

Mr. Lewis: Does it include the 8d. a ton that has gone on coal today?

Sterling Balances

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change took place in the total figure of sterling balances in November, 1956.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The figures are not yet available; but apart from that, it has been the practice of this and previous Governments to publish these figures only half-yearly in the White Papers on the balance of payments.

Mr. Wilson: But whatever the practice may have been, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a somewhat misleading picture may be derived from the publication of movements in the gold and dollar reserves in times such as the present? Might it not even be helpful to the Government and to the position of sterling to see what, if any, changes there have been in sterling balances at the same time as these devastating changes in the gold and dollar reserves?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct. There are considerations on both sides. After all, he, or his right hon. Friends, followed this practice when the Labour Government were in power. Sir Stafford Cripps expressly said, when asked about it in 1950, that he would not change the practice.

Gold and Dollar Reserves

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total loss, over the months August to November, of gold and dollars, net of the proceeds of the sale of Trinidad assets; and the proportion which these represent of the gold and dollar reserves at the beginning of that four-month period.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The figures are: 616 million dollars and 26 per cent. It is, of course, precisely because these are large totals that steps have been taken at home and abroad to strengthen our position.

Mr. Wilson: But does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recall the very critical comments made by the Chancellor on 17th February about the fact that our gold and dollar reserves for the whole of 1955 fell by about 25 per cent.? Is he not aware that a fall of 26 per cent. in four months is extremely serious, and will not be covered merely by borrowing more money from other people?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not know about the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but he will appreciate that the drawings and the standby from the International Monetary Fund are, in total, just about twice the figure of the losses of reserves in the last four months.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the remarkably fine export figures for October and

November, can my hon. and learned Friend say to what extent these losses of gold and dollars are attributable to speculative elements, and to what extent they may be attributable to trading deficits or surpluses.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that my right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement last week that they were not attributable to any defects in our trading position. My hon. Friend may have observed that that is confirmed by what Mr. Jacobssen is reported this morning as saying.

Mr. Wilson: While imports were bound to be severely reduced in November by lack of shipping, as we were previously informed by the Government, is it not a fact that, in addition to the speculative element mentioned by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), there must have been a pretty substantial leakage of capital movements from the sterling area to the outside world? How far, in the view of the hon. and learned Member, is this due to the most regrettable weakening in the exchange control defences of the pound over the last two or three years.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is now seeking an answer to which he is not entitled at this time.

Hospital Capital Schemes (Committee's Recommendation)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now reached a decision on the recommendation of the Guillebaud Committee that hospital capital schemes of less than £100,000 should no longer require individual approval by the Treasury.

Mr. H. Brooke: Yes, Sir. Hospital capital schemes costing less than £60,000 no longer require individual approval by the Treasury.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the regional hospital boards will tender to the Chancellor their half-hearted thanks for his: having gone half-way to meeting this recommendation? Can he tell the House why it has not been possible to go the whole way to meeting this very modest recommendation in the Report?

Mr. Brooke: I had hoped that the hon. Member, as a member of a regional hospital board, would have been wholehearted on this occasion. The fact is that £60.000 is double the previous limit of £30,000, which is the limit that already applies to most other civil and defence building paid for by the Exchequer.

Taxes

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make in the Profits Tax, the Purchase Tax and the tobacco and beer duties in his next Budget.

Mr. H. Brooke: I do not propose to anticipate my right hon. Friend's next Budget.

Mr. Jenkins: In that case, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why Income Tax is to be singled out, and why we were given last week an indication of his right hon. Friend's intention about that, and not about other taxes? Will he please explain the logical distinction which his right hon. Friend made in his mind?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend explained that the Income Tax was the traditional first weapon first used on these occasions. I know of the Socialist devotion to high taxation, but I should not have thought that the hon. Member would wish the Chancellor to increase all these taxes simultaneously.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the extraordinary reference made by the Chancellor to the Income Tax—marking a very great contrast to what the Lord Privy Seal did on the eve on the last Election—in any way connected with the Financial Secretary's statement last night, when, quite suddenly, he told us that there was not to be an Election in 1957? Are we to take it, therefore, that in 1957 there will be no question of following the Lord Privy Seal's example?

Mr. Brooke: I have already said that I do not propose to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but I do not see why I should not anticipate General Election prospects.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can never anticipate his Budget statement, is not the asinine Question on the Order Paper typical of the oaflike Opposition opposite?

Mr. Brooke: I can add nothing to the cogency of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Mr. Jay: Even if the Financial Secretary is unable to answer that question, can he, at least, give an assurance that, after this week, there will be no further Budget until April?

Mr. Brooke: I am not proposing to anticipate anything, but the Financial Secretary has a personal interest in avoiding Budgets.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of what the Financial Secretary has said, and despite the fact that it clearly contradicts everything which the Lord Privy Seal did in his last Budget, can we have an assurance that it is clearly the Chancellor's intention to consider increasing the Income Tax before he considers any changes in the taxes which I have mentioned?

Mr. Nabarro: Certainly not.

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicated that he had reviewed the tax field. He made certain statements on Tuesday last week. I have nothing to add to them.

International Monetary Fund (Government's Application)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now give further details of the Government's application to the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have applied to the International Monetary Fund for a drawing of 561·47 million United States dollars and a standby arrangement to draw currencies worth up to 738·53 million United States dollars. These requests were approved by the Executive Board of the Fund at its meeting in Washington yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the Economic Secretary confirm that if, as we hope, our gold and dollar position begins to improve in the near future, the first claim on our reserves will then be the repayment of these drawings before we can begin in any normal sense to build up our reserves again?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We have undertaken to repurchase the dollars obtained by the drawings within three years.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is this not a very grave statement for the Government to have to make at this time? Does this not mean that the Government are throwing in one of our last lines of reserve to pay for the military expedition to Suez and is it not a fact that it was always envisaged that reserves as important as these might be needed in case of some worsening of world economic and financial conditions? Will the Government bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, that they should make this a first priority of financial policy to re-establish these reserves in order that we can be fortified against any further difficulty which we may meet?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, and we shall certainly hope to do better than our predecessors in this respect. In the six months following September, 1947, the Labour Government made four drawings on the fund to the total of 300 million dollars. A repayment to the fund of 124 million dollars was made in 1954, when the present Administration was in power.

Mr. Wilson: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to mislead the House? The present Government have borrowed not 300 million dollars but, in various forms, 1.300 million dollars. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House by how many hundreds of millions of dollars the reserves today are below the figures when we on this side of the House left office?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman pools these amounts together as a borrowing, but he will appreciate that the drawing is 561 million dollars. The larger figure of 738 million dollars is not a borrowing as of now, but is merely a standby arrangement.

University Academic Salaries

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the working of the new procedure for regulating the salaries of university teachers.

Mr. H. Brooke: I understand that, after discussions between the Committee of the Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers, each of these bodies has met the University

Grants Committee and given it a full statement of their views on the need for a review of academic salaries. My right hon. Friend now awaits a report from the University Grants Committee.
The procedure outlined to the House on 20th July last year is, therefore, operating in the manner then envisaged.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is operating very slowly indeed? Is he further aware that university teachers view with concern the increases in salaries obtained recently by civil servants and by teachers in schools and technical colleges, while their own salaries lag behind? Can he give any indication that some result will emerge before very long from these negotiations?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not interfere with the affairs of the University Grants Committee. The University Grants Committee will in due course, and as soon as it is in a position to do so, be submitting a report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give consideration to the matter.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to salaries of professors of medicine and surgery? These compare badly with sums earned outside and tend to withdraw from professorships some of the best men in the service.

Mr. Brooke: I realise that a number of different and sometimes conflicting views are held about the relative salaries earned by various people. I think we have got a fairly good procedure now, and in due course the Chancellor will be considering the report, when he receives it.

Manufacturing Industries (Investment)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to increase the volume of investment in manufacturing industries.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Fixed investment in private manufacturing industry has been rising quickly in the last two years. Last year the rate of increase was over one-quarter by value and about one-fifth by volume. In the first half of this year the same rate of increase was maintained. While this rapid growth of investment is


to be welcomed, a degree of restraint on all forms of spending at home remains necessary in order to assist the balance of payments.

Mr. Cronin: While thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for that somewhat complacent answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the volume of investment in manufacturing industries is dropping behind that in Soviet Russia, the United States, Western Germany, Italy, and most of our competitors?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It is, of course, true that some countries are devoting more of their national output to investment than we are able to do, but I think that we have a good record, having regard to our defence commitments.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it has been the policy of the Chancellor throughout this year to try to cut down investment? Our national investment is now falling while Germany's is increasing sharply, with all that it means in the export markets. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now consider introducing a system of control which will hold back the inessential investment in order vastly to expand the essential investment?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has something of a King Charles' head about this, if I may so term it without disrespect, but the items which he has so much in mind really loom far less largely in this matter than he would like the House to believe.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman's original Answer mean that the Government now want investment in manufacturing industries to go up or down?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The rate of investment in the manufacturing industries is holding pretty steady. That does not mean that the pattern of it is necessarily steady because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, as a result of the measures taken, investment tends to improve in that sector of manufacturing industries which particularly contribute to exports and the balance of payments.

Mr. Jay: Could the Economic Secretary answer the very simple question put to him? Do the Government want to see investment go up or down?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Yes or no?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We hope that it will continue to go up, but we want the upward trend to be without prejudice to the balance of payments position of this country.

United States Loans, 1945 (Waiver of Interest)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider the decision to claim a waiver of the annual instalment of interest on the loan from the Government of the United States of America, payable on 31st December, 1956, in view of the effect that its announcement has had on foreign confidence in sterling and also the necessity for its debate in Congress.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I see no reason why an application for a waiver of the annual interest on the United States loans of December, 1945, made in accordance with the intention of the Loan Agreement, should have on adverse effect on foreign confidence in sterling. Indeed, I am sure that the undertaking by the United States Administration to put the matter to Congress with a favourable recommendation has had a helpful effect.

Mr. Cronin: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the forward premiums have moved steadily against sterling ever since his right hon. Friend made that announcement?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The official rate for sterling has held pretty steady in the last week since the statement was made.

Mr. Peyton: Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the chief reasons at the moment for lack of confidence abroad in sterling is the fear, which is of course, unfounded, that we might have the party opposite in power?

Mr. Jay: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what the legal position would be if the United States Congress do not accept this request before 31st December? Should we be formally in default or not?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend made it clear that we are proposing to pay the amount of interest due, on the assumption that there is no


waiver, into a special account to stress the fact that in no circumstances will this country default on its obligations.

Mr. Jay: Shall we be paying it into an account in the ownership of the American Government?

Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend made it clear that the question of the machinery for the payment into a special account would be gone into in consultation with the United States Government.

National Gallery (Exhibition Space)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that of the 1,960 pictures in the National Gallery only 855 were on exhibition on 26th July last, because there was not enough space to exhibit the other 1,105; if he will now state whether space has since been found to exhibit the latter; and what are his plans for relieving the National Gallery of this problem and for enabling the public to see all the pictures there that were acquired for the purpose of public exhibition.

Mr. H. Brooke: Since 26th July the reopening of three more exhibition rooms has made it possible to hang a further 105 pictures in the National Gallery. Therefore, 960 pictures are now on exhibition in the Gallery, and a further 150 are loaned for exhibition elsewhere.
In answer to the last part of the Question, the Trustees tell me that in their Report for 1955–56, which is to be published on Thursday, they refer to a long-term reconstruction plan which would substantially increase the exhibition space in the Gallery.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that both he and the Trustees are guilty of a serious breach of trust in not hanging the pictures which are entrusted to them for public exhibition, when there are other galleries ready and willing to do so? Will he take steps to see that some of the pictures are sent to appropriate galleries, for instance the Lane pictures to the Dublin Art Gallery?

Mr. Brooke: I suspected that the Lane pictures were in the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind, but I detect no mention of them in his original Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Buildings (Architectural and Historic Interest)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government for how many local authority districts a list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest has still to be issued; of these, how many have still to be surveyed; and when it is expected the work will be completed throughout the country.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Out of 1,480 local authorities areas, 1,071 have been surveyed. Lists, including interim lists, have been issued in respect of 1,177 areas. I cannot forecast when this work will be completed.

Dr. Stross: While thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask him whether he would agree that, as so much of the work has already been done, it really is time it was completed? Will he give what encouragement he possibly can to see that it is expedited?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, within reason; but there is, of course, a fearful amount of work involved in listing, and it does inevitably take time.

Men's Institutes (Rates)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to amend Section 8 (1) of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, so as to permit exemption from rates of men's institutes, many of which are now in danger of closing down because of heavy increased rate burden.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): My right hon. Friend has no legislation in mind on this point at present.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that, whilst the great public schools can be granted this concession of local authorities waiving rates, since I tabled this Question a men's institute in a small village not far from my home has had to close; and will he ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider this decision?

Mr. Powell: Section 8 of the 1955 Act does provide that non-profit-making organisations which are concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare may qualify for relief. It is not for my right hon. Friend to decide whether any particular men's institute is covered by that Section or not.

Commercial Building, Central London

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has for the provision of more residential accommodation in central London; and whether, in view of the housing need and the heavy demands on transport facilities, he will refuse his consent to any further business and commercial building in the central area.

Mr. Sandys: It was in order to reduce congestion that I modified the County of London Development Plan so as to increase the area allocated for residential use and to restrain the spread of commerce in the central areas. Since then I have missed no opportunity of stressing the importance of these questions. I am hoping shortly to receive from the London County Council and the City Corporation proposals for further measures to relieve congestion.

Mrs. Jeger: Whilst appreciating the steps which the Minister has already taken, may I ask him whether he would agree that there are indications that office building in central London is already excessive, as one can see from the number of advertisements about office space to let in many of these new, and older, office buildings? Is he not prepared to answer the specific point of my Question, as to whether he will definitely refuse his consent to any further business or commercial building, at least for the time being?

Mr. Sandys: It is not so easy. It really would not be realistic to put a ban on all further commercial building in what is, after all, the principal commercial centre of this country; and, apart from whether it would be wise to do so, the compensation involved would run into fantastic figures. That must be borne in mind; but I am doing what I can to keep additional commercial building within bounds.

Rolling Mill Project, Butterthwaite

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is now prepared to give permission for

the erection of a rolling mill by Messrs. Joseph Gillott & Sons, Sheffield, at Butterthwaite.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend hopes to give his decision this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Programmes

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have notified him of their intention to discontinue building dwelling-houses.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) on 4th December.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it is reported that 300 local authorities are discontinuing building houses because of the abolition of the subsidy and the increase in the Bank Rate, and does he not agree that this is a retrograde step in a great social service? What is he doing to stop this step backwards?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know about "this step backwards". First, I have asked all local authorities to let me have their estimate of the number of tenders which they are proposing to let for the erection of houses during the current financial year. As soon as the returns are complete, I shall publish them; but I think it will be found that, while there has been a switch from general needs house building to slum clearance, there is no evidence of any sharp reduction in the overall housing plans of local authorities.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right to make a second cut in the housing subsidies when he does not yet know the result of the first one?

Mr. Sandys: I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity of expounding his views on that subject on Thursday.

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for national unity, he will take the necessary action to prevent controversial legislation


being introduced and take such action as may be necessary to suspend further progress with the Rent Bill, and take no further steps to impose the prescription charges or take any other action which will increase the cost of living.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The Government believe that the legislation they introduce, and the policies they pursue, are in the best interests of the country. Therefore, much as we would welcome the support of the hon. Member and his right hon. and hon. Friends, we must, if necessary, press on without it.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Chancellor made an appeal only last week to the trade unions not to go forward for wage increases? In view of the fact that the trade unions have rightly condemned these suggested legislative Measures, which undoubtedly will push up the cost of living, should not the Minister, if he wants to get the co-operation and good will of the trade unions, meet them and discuss with them the possibility of implementing the suggestion contained in the Question?

Mr. Butler: It is very important indeed for the Government that we should work with the trade unions. The reason for the Rent Bill has been explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and it will, we believe, have a good effect upon the economy, quite apart from the effect which it will have on the demand on housing. The question of the prescription charges, to which reference is made in the Question, arises because my right hon. Friend was obliged to economise in Government expenditure. There are, therefore, reasons for both these Measures, which we believe are important.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask whether it is intended by the Government that they should have formal consultations with the Trades Union Congress on the present economic situation, and, if so, whether it would not be wise, pending those consultations, for the Government to keep an open mind on this question?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go back on the Answer I have given on these questions, but I have said before, during the Prime

Minister's absence, that we do attach importance to the contacts which we already have with the Trades Union Congress. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be glad to maintain contact with the Economic Committee, and we have also the committees of the Government upon which the trade unions are represented. We value these contacts and, if there is the slightest desire for an early meeting, then it will certainly be met.

HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will now propose a meeting of heads of Governments of the great Powers for the purpose of discussing the immediate limitation and eventual abolition of hydrogen bomb tests, and the organisation of an international embargo on arms supplies to the Middle East, pending the discovery of a lasting settlement of Middle Eastern problems.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
In answer to the first part, I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15th November.
As regards the second, the United Nations is at present making efforts to settle outstanding questions in the Middle East.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not now six months since the Prime Minister undertook to take the initiative on the matter of hydrogen bomb tests at an appropriate time? Was it not in July that the Prime Minister gave that undertaking, and could not the acting Prime Minister now say when the appropriate time is likely to be reached? Further, could not this question be well combined with an initiative to try to reduce tension in the Middle East by an arms embargo on the part of the great Powers?

Mr. Butler: It is true that this has taken some time. The reason it has done so is that it is very difficult to make progress with the matter. All I can do is to assure the hon. Member and the House that this will be one of the subjects which I shall discuss with my right hon. Friend on his return.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised a point of Privilege, which I have had an opportunity of considering. As the House knows, my duty on these occasions is not to say whether there has or has not been a breach of Privilege, but merely to say whether the hon. Member who raises the matter has made out a prima facie case such as would enable me to give it priority over the Orders of the Day.
I understand that the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) does not complain about the newspaper in any way. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no complaint about the newspaper—indeed, the hon. Member for Dudley said so yesterday. Nor, in what has been said, do I see any prima facie case of any breach of Privilege by the hon. Member for Lanark.
I would remark that animadversions against the conduct of Whips are common on both sides of the House. These have never hitherto been treated as breaches of the Privilege of the whole House. As for any question of breach of Privilege by the usual channels, if that be the proper term, the only hon. Member who could complain about it with real knowledge is the hon. Member for Lanark himself.
As the hon. Member for Lanark made the speech on Friday, if he wanted to complain about the subject on Friday that would have been his earliest opportunity of doing so. Therefore, I cannot see that there is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege against anyone such as would enable me to give the matter precedence over the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Wigg: Thank you for your consideration of this matter, Mr. Speaker. May I point that there is one small slip which you have made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—one slight error of fact, which I would point out with respect. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) did not make a speech. What he did was to give a prepared statement to the Press. Since that time, I have seen a copy of it—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think we want to hear it. If it was not a speech, it does not matter. If the hon. Member for Lanark was suffering from any sense that a breach of Privilege had occurred against the House, he had an opportunity of raising it on Friday but did not do so. What he said to the Press is, I think, irrelevant in the matter.

Mr. Wigg: I have not the slightest intention of reading the statement, Sir. I want to point out, however, that the hon. Member for Lanark did make a statement to the Press. It is quite clear that as the hon. Member does not now wish to make a statement, having fortified himself by the knowledge that he had dared to show himself in the House, the charge of a breach of Privilege lies against the Patronage Secretary. It is perfectly clear that the hon. Member for Lanark is asserting that he and 14 of his colleagues were under such pressure that they had to dare to come to the House. Therefore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already taken that into account and ruled that it does not, to my mind, constitute a breach of Privilege by anyone. Therefore, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should accept the Ruling.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".]—may I be allowed to conclude my submission? The hon. Member for Lanark admits the accuracy of the statement which appeared in the Press and he asserts that it was necessary for him and 14 of his colleagues to dare to show themselves in this place. The daring may be one of two kinds; it may be physical daring or moral daring, or, of course, it may be neither. The hon. Member asserted that it was necessary to show daring in order to show himself at this House. The House cannot possibly function if it is necessary to dare against the Patronage Secretary.
Therefore—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sitdown."]—it is my submission that there is a prima facie case, although I admit, Mr. Speaker, that you are in great difficulty, because the only person who can give evidence on the point is the hon. Member for Lanark, and he has not got the guts to repeat in the House what he said in Glasgow.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dudley should not make charges of that kind against the hon. Member for Lanark. That is not the way to deal with it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite prepared to participate in a little harmless amusement occasionally if that be the intention of hon. Members. I would point out, however, that Privilege is a very serious thing and that, personally, I cannot find myself in the position of treating it lightly.
I have given my Ruling on this matter and I must remind the hon. Member for Dudley that if he disagrees with what I have said, he is at liberty to put dawn a Motion either saying that it is a breach of Privilege and asking for the decision of the House in the matter, or, if he thinks I am wrong in my Ruling on the matter, saying that I am wrong in not giving it priority. He can put down a Motion against my decision, but that is all he can do.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of Privilege—

Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled on it. Does the hon. and learned Member have a substantial point?

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of Privilege, Sir. I understood yesterday that in reply to the hon. Member for

Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) you said that the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) should be given an opportunity to make a statement. Speaking for those of us here, may I say that we are very disappointed? It sounded as though it would be a most fascinating experience.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Member would agree that I was right in not coming to a decision without giving the hon. Member for Lanark an opportunity to make a statement if he so wished. I have, however, asked him and he has told me that has no complaint about the newspaper. That is the ground of the first part of my decision. If the hon. Member for Lanark does not wish to make a statement, I do not see why I or anybody else should press him to do so.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: In reply to the things that have been said, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I did not invite the protection of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mi. Wigg). He did not give me advance warning that he was raising this matter and I have nothing further to say.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — GHANA INDEPENDENCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read. —[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

3.39 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Lord John Hope): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a historic day. The result of the passage of this Bill through Parliament, should it be passed, will be that we shall hail the first of the British dependent territories in tropical Africa to attain full self-government as a sovereign and independent nation.
The introduction of the Bill marks the last stage in a process which started over a century ago. Up to the early part of the nineteenth century, English trade with the Gold Coast was conducted by a series of companies chartered by the King or set up by Acts of Parliament. From 1806 until 1900 there occurred the Ashanti wars, and it was during this period that the government of the settlements in the Gold Coast was vested in various ways in the Crown. After the last Ashanti war Britain assumed full responsibility for the government of the Gold Coast and its hinterland, and, in 1901, Orders in Council were made regularising the situation and bringing together into one unit the Colony, Ashanti and the Northern Territories.
The first step towards self-government may be said to have been taken in 1925. In that year a new Constitution was made which reconstituted the Legislative Council so as to include elected members. At that stage, however, the Council retained an ex officio majority and its authority was limited to the Colony. In 1946, a further advance was made when a second constitutional change introduced a non-official majority for the first time in an African colonial legislature. Representation was broadened to include Ashanti and subsequently Southern Togoland. In 1951, the third and most fundamental constitutional change was made when a large degree of internal self-government was granted.
The 1951 Constitution set up an Executive Council consisting of three ex officio members and eight representative Ministers approved by the Legislative Assembly on the recommendation of the Governor. The authority of the Legislative Assembly was extended to cover the whole of the country, including the Northern Territories and the whole of the Trust Territory of Togoland under United Kingdom administration. Its membership was increased to 84, of whom 75 were elected by various forms of popular franchise to represent the chiefs and peoples. Provision was made for each Minister to be responsible for a number of Government Departments.
Early in 1952 the Constitution was further amended to provide for the appointment of a Prime Minister, Dr. Nkrumah being the first to hold this office. In 1954, a Constitution was introduced which granted virtually full internal self-government. It provided for a Legislative Assembly of 104 members chosen by direct election on the basis of universal adult suffrage. The posts of three ex officio Ministers in the previous Constitution were abolished, and the Cabinet, consisting of no fewer than eight members of the Assembly appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, became the principal instrument of policy. Responsibility for defence, external affairs, and certain matters concerned with the police were specifically reserved to the Governor, acting in his discretion, while he also retained general reserved powers.
The 1954 Constitution marked the last stage before the assumption by the Gold Coast of full responsibility for its own affairs. As the Secretary of State for the Colonies informed the House in his statement on 11th May:
The grant of such responsibility is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and it always has been the wish of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that the Gold Coast should achieve its independence within the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1557.]
The House will recall that in his statement of 11th May my right hon. Friend undertook, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, that if a General Election were held in the Gold Coast Her Majesty's Government would be ready to accept a motion calling


for independence within the Commonwealth passed by a reasonable majority in a newly-elected legislature and then to declare a firm date for independence.
A General Election was held in the Gold Coast on 12th July and 17th July, 1956. It was observed by six Members of Parliament drawn from both sides of the House of Commons. As a result of the Election, Dr. Nkruma's party, the Convention Peoples' Party, was returned to power with only a slightly reduced majority, and it now holds 72 of the 104 seats in the Legislative Assembly, and it won 57 per cent. of the votes cast throughout the country.
The new Legislative Assembly was opened on 31st July, and on 3rd August the Government introduced their expected motion calling for independence within the Commonwealth. The Opposition Members had absented themselves from the debate and the motion was passed by 72 votes to none. The motion was conveyed to my right hon. Friend by the Governor in a despatch dated 23rd August. On 18th September my right hon. Friend published his reply, which informed the Governor that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would, at the first available opportunity, introduce into the United Kingdom Parliament a Bill to accord independence to the Gold Coast, and that, subject to Parliamentary approval, the Government intended that independence should come about on 6th March, 1957.
The Ghana Independence Bill is introduced to give effect to the undertaking by the Government in that despatch published on 18th September. It provides for the attainment by the Gold Coast of fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth, sometimes colloquially known as "Statute of Westminster powers"
I should, in particular, state that the Colonial Secretary has it in command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that she has placed her Prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
Before going any further I should like to explain the relationship between the Bill and the Constitution which the Gold Coast will inherit on the attainment of independence. The Bill does not deal with details of the Constitution of the

Gold Coast. Its main purpose is to confer on the new State of Ghana the basic powers necessary to give it the status of an independent country within the Commonwealth. The Bill also makes the necessary consequential amendments in the law of the United Kingdom and of Ghana.
As is usual, the Constitution at present in force in the Gold Coast is contained in a series of Orders in Council. After the Royal Assent has been given to the Ghana Independence Bill, and before it comes into force, it will be necessary to issue a further Order in Council, to come into force on Independence Day, which will bring the existing Constitution into conformity with the new status of Ghana. The final responsibility for the Order in Council rests with the United Kingdom Ministers, but the fullest account will, naturally, be taken of the Gold Coast Government's proposals regarding the Constitution.
The House will know that the Gold Coast Government have recently held discussions about the Constitution with the Parliamentary Opposition and with the Territorial Councils, and that, following these discussions, they have prepared revised constitutional proposals published in a White Paper, of which copies have been placed in the Library of this House.
The final proposals of the Gold Coast Government have only recently been received and are now receiving detailed study and legal scrutiny. It is, therefore, too early to say precisely what advice will be given to Her Majesty about the detailed terms of the Order in Council. In this connection, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has asked me to say that he will take very careful note of any points about the Constitution which hon. Members may wish to raise in the debate.
The National Liberation Movement, the Northern People's Party, and the Asanteman Council have recently sent formal resolutions to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary asking for separate independence to be awarded to Ashanti and the Northern Territories and for the appointment of a Partition Commission to divide up the assets and liabilities of the Gold Coast. The Bill which we are discussing today is in itself evidence of the intention of Her Majesty's Government


to proceed with the grant of independence to the country as a whole.
The House will wish to know that a formal reply has now been sent to these resolutions in the following terms:
Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the partition of the Gold Coast is in the interests of the Gold Coast as a whole or of any of its component parts, and cannot abandon their established policy which is directed towards the grant of independence to the Gold Coast as a whole. Her Majesty's Government are now proceeding with the preparation of the necessary constitutional instruments, having regard to the circumstances of the Gold Coast, and the efforts which were made to reach agreement locally. The grant of independence to the Gold Coast is an act of goodwill which Her Majesty's Government trust will be received by the people of the Gold Coast in a spirit of responsibility which will command the respect of the world.
It is our view that the partition of the Gold Coast would not be in the interests of the country as a whole, or indeed of any of the component parts which during the past half-century have grown steadily and strongly into a single nation.
Hon. Members will be aware that the different parts of the country are interdependent both politically and economically. Indeed, the North and the South are complementary to one another. To sever would be to cripple. The partition of the country at this stage in its history, moreover, would not only inhibit further development and progress, but would mean a serious falling back in the standards of life which the country has done so much to achieve during the past few years.
I come to the main provisions of the Bill. Without wishing to go into more detail than I need, there are some points to which I must draw the attention of the House. First, there is the name "Ghana." This has been conferred on the new country in accordance with local wishes. It was the name of an ancient kingdom, in what is now French territory south of the Sahara, which has acquired great historic significance in the Gold Coast.
Next to call for special mention is the first proviso to Clause 1. This explains that the Bill will not apply
in relation to Togoland under United Kingdom Trusteeship until Her Majesty so provides by Order in Council, which shall be made as soon as practicable after provision has been made for the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement for that territory upon its union with an independent Gold Coast. …

For more than thirty years Her Majesty's Government have administered the Trust—formerly Mandated—Territory of British Togoland as an integral part of the Gold Coast, as it was entitled to do under the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement.
Two years ago, Her Majesty's Government informed the United Nations that, after the attainment of independence by the Gold Coast, this arrangement would no longer be constitutionally possible; and the United Nations accordingly agreed last year that a plebiscite should be held to ascertain the view of the inhabitants on the future status of the Trust Territory. This plebiscite, which was held under United Nations auspices in May, 1956, resulted in a clear majority vote in favour of the union of the territory with an independent Gold Coast, and in July of this year the Trusteeship Council passed a resolution noting that the will of the majority of the inhabitants was for union with an independent Gold Coast and recommending
… that appropriate steps be taken in consultation with the Administering Authority for the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement for the territory to become effective upon the attainment of independence by the Gold Coast.
This recommendation was approved by the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly on 5th December, and it is expected that it will be endorsed by the General Assembly during its present session, and before 6th March, 1957.
I come now to the provisions about nationality, in Clause 2. These are consequential upon the grant of independence. In this instance, however, there is no parallel with the Ceylon Independence Act, 1947. That Ceylon Act was enacted at a time when anyone born within the Sovereign's dominions was a British subject, and the new system of each independent Commonwealth country having its own citizenship law was not then in force. In 1948, as the House will know, the British Nationality Act was passed, which created the status of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Each Commonwealth country has enacted its own citizenship law in most cases on similar though not identical lines. Our Act provided that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and those of other Commonwealth countries


should be known as British subjects or Commonwealth citizens, and provisions to a similar effect are contained in most of the Acts of other Commonwealth countries.
The Gold Coast consists at present of a Colony, a Protectorate and a Trust Territory. Under Clause 1, all these areas are together to become Ghana, as a part of Her Majesty's dominions, after the date of independence. The published intention of the Gold Coast Government is to introduce a Ghana citizenship law applicable to all parts of the new country without distinction. But this cannot happen till after independence. We have to consider what the position will be in the meanwhile.
Clause 2, therefore, sets out to achieve two things. First, in this nationality field, as in all others, Ghana must be treated as fully independent, and we must avoid prolonging colonial implications into the period after independence takes effect. This is achieved by Clause 2 (a), the effect of which is to include Ghana in the list of Commonwealth countries in the relevant Section 1 (3) of the British Nationality Act. This means that, when Ghana enacts its own citizenship law, its citizens will be recognised in United Kingdom law as British subjects.
The second object to be attained is to make a purely transitional arrangement to bridge the period between independence day and the enactment by the Parliament of Ghana of a Ghana citizenship law, and to prevent large numbers of people from becoming stateless. Accordingly, the proviso to Clause 2 secures that people who were British protected persons before independence by virtue of their connection with either the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast or the Trust Territory of Togoland will retain that status until they become citizens of Ghana.
Owing to the way the British Nationality Act operates, the same result is achieved automatically without fresh legal provision in the case of people who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of their connection with the Gold Coast Colony or Ashanti. Thus, both citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and British protected persons who possess their respective

status because of their connection with any part of the Gold Coast will temporarily retain their national status after independence.
As I have explained, this is intended simply as a transitional arrangement until Ghana has created her own citizenship. The Gold Coast Government have agreed to it. We have explained to the Gold Coast Government that this transitional arrangement does not imply or carry with it any continued responsibility for the people concerned or any continued protection over them by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom after Ghana has become independent.
Now I come to Clause 3. The provisions in the Clause about the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts must, of course, be specially mentioned. Subsections (1) and (2) provide that no further schemes shall be made for Ghana under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1950–55. As the House is aware, the assistance given under those Acts is far dependent territories, and I am sure that there will be general agreement with the view that Colonial Development and Welfare Funds should not be expended on Ghana after it has become an independent country within the Commonwealth.
Subsection (3) of the same Clause has been inserted to remove any possible doubt about the future of the West African regional research organisations which are partly supported by C.D. and W. Funds. We hope that Ghana will continue to be associated with these bodies, from which great benefit can be derived by all the West African territories, irrespective of their political status. It would be wrong to exclude her from participating as a paying member, simply because there will continue to be an element of C.D. and W. assistance to these regional schemes on account of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Gambia.
There is one further point that I must mention in the C.D. and W. context. The Kumasi College of Technology helps to serve the vital and growing needs of Ghana in the field of higher technical education. The sum of £350,000 of C.D. and W. money had been earmarked as a contribution towards the college's capital expansion programme, but no scheme has yet been made, and there is


not enough time now to arrange for the money to be spent before Ghana ceases to be eligible for CD. and W. aid.
It would have a deplorable effect on the efforts which are being made to improve the standard of technical education in the territory if this long promised aid were no longer to be available to the college. It is, therefore, proposed, subject to Parliamentary approval, that the college should receive a special grant of £350,000 from the Commonwealth Services Vote towards the cost of suitable projects in its building programme. I have taken note of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) during the debate on the Address, but I am advised that there is no need for special legislation to give effect to this proposal.
The provisions about the Colonial Development Corporation similarly call for special explanation. Clause 3 (4) defines the position of the Colonial Development Corporation. Under the Overseas Resources Development Acts, the C.D.C., as it is called, is able to operate in Colonial Territories; that is, territories to which the Colonial Welfare Acts applied in 1948. This subsection provides that, after independence Ghana will no longer be covered by the Overseas Resources Development Acts and will not, therefore, be within the scope of the C.D.C. itself. Special provision is made, however, for the continuance by the C.D.C. of projects commenced in Ghana before independence.
The purpose of the Colonial Development Corporation is to assist in the economic development of Colonial Territories for whose welfare and policy the United Kingdom is directly responsible. It would be contrary to this purpose for the Corporation to serve as an instrument of development in independent Commonwealth countries. The Government intend, therefore, that, whilst the Corporation should be able to carry on with existing activities, it should not undertake any new projects after a territory attains independence. Accordingly, this policy is being applied in the Bill to the Gold Coast.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: While it is true that under the Corporation's regulations this assistance cannot be given, have the Government

paid attention to the Resolution, unanimously adopted by the House within the last ten days, urging that a fund for Commonwealth development should be available for these purposes?

Lord John Hope: The Resolution urged special machinery. If the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I now have to say I think he will find that that has not been forgotten. I was about to say that I did not propose to leave this part of the Bill quite there.
Her Majesty's Government most certainly recognise that there may well be a period, after the emergence of a new nation to independence, during which it cannot have as ready an appeal for investment purposes as it will have when it has found its feet and proved itself. Our minds are engaged on the examination of this problem now. In particular, we are to get into touch with the other members of the Commonwealth on the basis of some constructive suggestions made in this context in the debate in this House last Friday week. The suggestions were to the effect that there might be some joint Commonwealth approach to the problem.
I think that the House will like to know, also, that the Commonwealth Development Finance Corporation is already in contact with the authorities in Ghana. This Corporation has, as well as funds at its disposal, an advisory service which is most highly thought of. Further, it is safe to say that the Corporation's decisions have a very definite influence on the market here.
I should draw the attention of the House to Clause 5 of the Bill, which provides for the Gold Coast to become independent within the Commonwealth on 6th March, 1957, unless, before 6th March, special steps are taken by Order in Council to appoint some other day as the date of independence. The date 6th March has been selected in accordance with local wishes. It is a date of local historical significance, being the anniversary of the signing of the Bond of 1844 from which British jurisdiction generally derives.
We cannot, however, ignore the possibility that last-minute unforeseen circumstances—for example, the illness of one of the principal participants—might make it necessary to alter a date fixed several months ahead. If this


should happen it would be very inconvenient, and perhaps impossible in the time, to go through the whole process of passing an amending Act of Parliament just to change the date. For this reason, powers are taken in the Bill to enable Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to name an alternative date without resorting to further legislation.
For constitutional reasons, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom must retain the final responsibility for advising Her Majesty on the terms of any Order in Council varying the appointed day. I wish, however, to place it on record that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the date of 6th March, 1957, will only be varied if unforeseen and compelling circumstances should arise which necessitate such a change and then only after consultation with the Government of the Gold Coast.
I must say a word, as I draw to an end what I have to say, on the question of Ghana becoming a member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. George Wigg: The Minister has made no reference at all to Clause 4. I have a particular interest in the position of British forces which will serve in Ghana. I should have thought that he could have paid some attention to that very important question.

Lord John Hope: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he will make up for it as best he can by catching Mr. Speaker's eye during the debate. I know that my right hon. Friend will be anxious to hear the hon. Member if he has any point which he wishes to raise.
I now come to the question of Ghana becoming a member of the Commonwealth. There is, of course, a clear distinction between the grant of responsible self-government within the Commonwealth and full membership of the Commonwealth. The first is a matter for the United Kingdom and the country concerned, and for them alone, and the second is a matter for all members of the Commonwealth. We are looking forward to Ghana becoming a full member of the Commonwealth and at the request of the present Gold Coast Government we intend to approach the other members on

the subject in the very near future. We have every hope that Ghana will become a full member on the same day as she becomes independent, namely, 6th March.
When that day comes, yet another stage will have been achieved in the journey of this great Commonwealth of Nations towards its destiny. Meanwhile, we are confident that the leaders and people of the Gold Coast will rise to the opportunities which lie before them, in full awareness of the responsibilities which they are now to shoulder. We pledge to them our friendship and our support. We wish them well.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: As the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has said, we in the House of Commons are privileged to take part this afternoon in making history, for the Gold Coast is the first of our African Colonies to achieve democratic independence within the Commonwealth. I join with the Under-Secretary in expressing the hope that the House will not only give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill, but that that unanimous Second Reading will carry with it the best wishes of all of us for the future of Ghana.
I have recently read one of the latest books on the African scene, of which there are so many, one of John Gunther's books, "Inside Africa". In his first chapter he describes how he found everywhere in Africa the sense that the African people were on the march, rapidly marching towards Western standards, although often uncertain about where it would take them. Among other things, we are indicating today that our colonial policy leads towards democratic independence. We are giving a direction to this march of the Africans and proving to them that this is the best road by which to attain their independence.
For all those reasons, I welcome the Bill on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Subject to the time which we shall require to consider it in detail in Committee, we shall do all we can to expedite the Bill and get it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. Before dealing in detail with one or two of the provisions of the Bill, I want to say that none of us can escape the fact that at present there is in the Gold Coast controversy about what the Constitution should be after independence day.
It is my fervent hope that the people in the Gold Coast will rise to the historic opportunity which presents itself to them. I was very glad indeed to find that the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast, whom many of us in the House are privileged to count as a personal friend, in his speech presenting the constitutional proposals to the Gold Coast Assembly recently, was fully conscious of the fact that in future the Gold Coast will have responsibility not only for itself, but in a way for all the African people. I should like to quote his words which deserve quoting and deserve enshrining in the HANSARD of our own Parliament.
Speaking to his Parliament and, through his Parliament, to his people, the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast said:
History has entrusted us with a duty and upon how we carry out that duty will depend not only the fate of this country but the fate of many other peoples throughout the whole of Africa. We must show that it is possible for Africans to rule themselves, to establish a progressive State and to preserve their national unity.
I hope that all the people of the Gold Coast will show that national unity which is required to make a success of this venture. It is inevitable that there should be strains and stresses when a country reaches that important stage in its constitutional advancement which the Gold Coast has now reached. After all, we ourselves did not attain our present constitutional stage without many strains and stresses and conflicts. We hope that the people of the Gold Coast will be able to avoid conflicts and that they will bend themselves to that and learn from our experience.
I want to say a few words to the Government and Opposition in the Gold Coast. I want the Government there to realise that it is our desire that they should do all they can to allay the fears in the Gold Coast and I want the Opposition to realise that they will carry a grave responsibility if, by their action, they prevent this very great venture from coming into operation and being a success.
It would not be wise for the House to enter into detailed controversial discussion of the detailed points about which there is not complete agreement, but there are some things which the Government can do and one or two in particular

which I want to indicate. I was very interested to note that in the speech to which I have referred the Prime Minister spoke of the steps which the Gold Coast Government would take to ensure that in the new Parliament the Opposition would have their full rights guaranteed within that Parliament. He was right to do that, because, rightly or wrongly, justified or unjustified, there have been fears that after independence day the Opposition would not have those rights which are a part of our democratic process.
I was glad to note that, speaking for his Government, he proposed to ensure that there will be guaranteed opportunities for the Opposition to raise matters in the House, to challenge the Government and to initiate debates. He proposed to enshrine that in the Constitution in one form or another.
He also proposed to ensure that the Opposition will have a guaranteed proportion of membership of Standing Committees and Select Committees. I was interested to note, further, that he said that he hoped also to establish a tradition in the Gold Coast—this is interesting in the light of recent events—by which the Prime Minister of the country will have consultations with the Leader of the Opposition on matters of grave national importance to secure, if possible, a concerted national policy. Other Prime Ministers please note!
I should like to make some suggestions to the Government and the Secretary of State to indicate in what way he thinks that we can help in this direction. The Government of the Gold Coast have said that when they frame their Constitution after independence day they propose to enshrine in it those provisions about fundamental rights which are incorporated in the Constitution of India. I have a copy of the Indian Constitution in my hand, Part III of which is related to human rights. Of course, there will have to be obvious changes and adaptations to meet the peculiar circumstances of Ghana, but if those provisions for fundamental rights which are embodied in the Indian Constitution are enshrined in the Gold Coast's Constitution, that should go a very long way towards removing many of the fears now expressed by the Opposition in Ghana.
Can any steps be taken by the Gold Coast Government in advance of independence day? I take the point at once that any legislation now passed by the Gold Coast Government in the present form, as a colonial Government, may not be valid after independence day and may have to be re-enacted. In present circumstances, I would put this suggestion to the Government of the Gold Coast, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give it some consideration. Cannot these provisions for fundamental rights, which the Government have already said they will accept, be embodied either in a Bill, or, if that is constitutionally impossible, in a White Paper and be debated in the Legislative Assembly and carried by a resolution which would indicate that they proposed to enshrine them in the Constitution after independence day? If that were done, it would go a very long way. I believe, towards meeting the fears which are being expressed.
The second problem to which I want to refer concerns the discussion in the Gold Coast about regional devolution. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for all my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I say that we are in full agreement with, and give our fullest support to, the decision of the Government—which I think they have bed wise to make plain today—that secession is not on the agenda. I beg all our friends in the Gold Coast to realise that if they now start partitioning their country they will be rendering a grave disservice to their people. The Gold Coast is only a small country of 5 million people. As the Under-Secretary of State has said, each part is supplementary and complementary to the other because of access to the sea and to communications.
To divide this small country would be a grave disservice to their own people and they would carry a very grave responsibility if, by an action of this kind, they made it impossible for the Gold Coast to survive and to become a viable State; and a grave disservice to the people in Africa and all over the world. I join with the Government in saying that we share their view and support their decision, which they have officially conveyed in the note read to us by the Under-Secretary of State, that they do not propose to accept

the proposal put forward for the partitioning of the Gold Coast and the acceptance or recognition of Ashanti or any other part of it as an independent State.
That leaves the problem of regional devolution. As I understand, the argument has been as to what power shall be vested in the regional authorities that are to be created. The Government have suggested that the regional authorities shall have the same kind of authority as is now vested in the London County Council and other county councils in this country—in other words, that there shall be a form of local government—whereas, if I understand it aright, their Opposition were thinking of powers in terms of Northern Ireland. I have myself come to the view that the Government are right. There is, I think, the strongest possible argument for regional devolution. There is no argument for the creation of separate Parliaments within this small territory. All the energies of the Government and of the Opposition should be directed to discovering ways and means by which these regional authorities can be made really effective bodies.
First, what powers are to be given to the regional authorities and, secondly, what powers should be given particularly for the raising of finance. I do not think that any of us ought to pronounce finally about that. I see that there is a strong case for considering ways by which these regional bodies, if they are to be effective, shall have some finances of their own. We all know that in our own local authorities part of their prestige and influence is that they have available some funds which they can spend themselves, although they have to spend them on objects decided and determined by the central Government.
Surely the same method could be adopted if only—and I make this as a suggestion—there could be included in the provisions that will be made by the legislature for the setting up of regional authorities means by which there will be guaranteed grants to them from the central Government and consideration given as to whether they can in some form or another raise some of their own funds. If we do that and provide for regional devolution by giving them some funds of their own and an effective part to play in the life of the country, I think that the Government, if they accept that


view and make provisions of that kind, will have gone as far as they are entitled to be asked to go by any Opposition. I hope, therefore, that full consideration will be given to these two suggestions.
A third suggestion has been made to me which I should like to convey to the Secretary of State. Some fears have been expressed—and I think that we had better face them—about the courts. It appears that it is intended that the present judges should continue in office. The fear has been expressed that after independence day the judges will be dismissed and that there will be political appointments. I hope that something can be done by the Government between now and 6th March. either by announcing in advance that the present judges are to continue until the time of their retirement or that if there are to be any changes—and it is not for us to decide whether changes are desirable or not—the names of the judges will be announced before independence day, thereby going some way, I hope, towards allaying those fears.
We are all very glad to note that they are to retain the provision by which there is the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and it has been suggested to me by one of my legal friends that it would be an appropriate occasion on which to appoint an African judge to the Privy Council. That would not only be a gesture; I am told that it would be of very great value and perhaps essential to the Privy Council in future, when considering appeals from the Gold Coast, that there should be an African judge on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to consider those suggestions.
I think it is vitally important that the Government should adopt some such measures as I have suggested, or some other way by which it can be shown beyond a peradventure that it is their firm intention to incorporate in the Constitution a provision for fundamental rights and stand by it.
I propose to deal with only one Clause of the Bill itself this afternoon. I have no comment at this stage—I may have in Committee—to make on some of the other provisions in the Bill. We welcome the decision of the United Nations on Togoland, and we join in

welcoming Togoland, in which we have responsibility as trustees, as a member of Ghana.
I come now to Clause 3. During the debate on the Address, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would consider telling the House, before we had this Bill before us, what provisions the Government intended to make for the territories after independence day which would be excluded, as I understand, from the provisions of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and, indeed, from the possible operations of the Colonial Development Corporation. I was anxious that that should be done because we have to realise, as I am sure we do, that within the next few years we shall see a succession of Colonies becoming independent. Now it is the Gold Coast; next year it will be Malaya; and in 1958 there will be the Caribbean Federation.
We are now at a very important turning point, and I think that it is essential that the House should consider what provisions we are to make so that our skill, knowledge and resources shall be available to them. Let us begin by saying that after independence day it is for them to decide what kind of help they require and determine in what way they want that help. We shall be making a grave mistake if we do not now begin to give serious thought to this problem. We should begin by making it clear that when Ghana becomes independent it is not our desire that we shall wash our hands of it thereafter. We cannot; it is we who are responsible for conferring this independent status upon the Gold Coast.
This is a tremendous venture. A democratic form of government is not the easiest form to establish or to sustain. In these days democratic government has become synonymous with a welfare State. I say that with some pride, because that is one of the contributions made by the Government of which I had the honour to be a member. We know that in setting up a democratic form of government the Gold Coast and many other similar States will have to face very great difficulties.
We have a special responsibility. In the main, the economies of all these Colonies have been shaped and patterned by us. I have no desire to raise old


controversies, but I must say that they have been shaped and patterned to meet not their needs, but our interests. When I became Secretary of State for the Colonies I went out to the Colonies and I found myself considering the same economic problem as that which used to face South Wales. The economy of my part of the world was designed not to meet the needs of South Wales, but to meet the country's need for coal. Its economy was on too narrow a base, and, when that went, down came the whole structure.
In the main, the economies of our Colonies are based upon primary products, and upon very narrow foundations. That of the Gold Coast is based particularly upon cocoa and gold. In recent months, with the price of cocoa falling, we have seen the really serious consequences to the people of the Gold Coast. One of the greatest contributions that we can make towards ensuring the economic viability and success of these territories is to establish a system by which we can guarantee the price at which we buy their primary products. Stability of prices of primary products is one of the essentials for their success for many years to come. It will take many years to develop a diversified economy.

Mr. Harold Davies: I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend make this point about the stability of prices, because he has on his side the authority of McMahon Ball, who says of South-East Asia that the stability of prices would be worth many Colombo Plans if we could find a formula for it.

Mr. John Tilney: Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) agree that what we really want is stability of agricultural income throughout the farming community rather than stability of prices?

Mr. Griffiths: When I referred to the stability of prices of primary products I realised that the standard of life and everything else depended upon that.
In the political situation of the 1950s we simply cannot afford to go back to the economic catastrophe of the 1930s, with all its consequences upon our Colonies, all of whom are primary producers. We cannot allow that to happen

when all these dynamic political forces are at work in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. It is, therefore, of vital importance that there should be a form of association between us and all the other Commonwealth countries and the primary producers. Now that the Gold Coast is to become independent, I hope that that factor will be taken into consideration.
The Gold Coast has meant a great deal to us ever since the Second World War. I speak as a member of a Government that held office for some years during that period, and I am now speaking to our temporary successors. I make the point, only in passing, that no representative of the Treasury is here. In our debates on most Bills—certainly, of this kind—it used to be a tradition of the House that a representative from the Treasury was present. This very old Parliamentary tradition seems to be falling into disuse. Gold Coast dollars have been very valuable to us; so have Malayan dollars. We could not have survived the dollar crisis without the help of the Colonies. That is the plain fact. It is not we who have been helping the Colonies since 1945; it is the Colonies who have been helping us. We have to realise what would be the effect if any of them decided to leave the sterling area, as they would be entitled to.
This is a matter upon which our future security depends. It is very important that we should say to Ghana, "We are conferring democratic independence upon you, with the good will of all. We are glad that you are staying inside the Commonwealth and that you are adding the rich diversity of your life to the great diversity of the Commonwealth, the greatest multiracial community the world has ever known. It is our greatest desire that this democratic dependence which we are pleased and privileged to agree that you should have shall succeed." If it is to succeed, we must help the Gold Coast.
I was glad to hear what the Under-Secretary of State said about the provisions which are already being made and which will be continued under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. They have formed one of the best instruments we have devised to assist the economic and social interests of the people in the dependent territories. The Under-Secretary of State said that it was now


possible to do that without legislation. Am I entitled to infer that it will now be possible, without legislation, to continue the grants, from other funds, for the same kind of purposes for which the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts were used?

Lord John Hope: Lord John Hope indicated assent.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the Secretary of State himself will say more about that.
The Bill provides that after 6th March, 1957, the Gold Coast will not rank for grants under the Acts. There are many fields in which these grants are of vital importance. Technical education has been mentioned. Another is university education and, in particular, there is adult education. Hon. Members will know what an important part adult education has played in building our democracy. I owe very much to adult education. It has done so much to train people to hold responsible posts in our democratic life and it is of immense importance. There will be very great danger unless provision is made for the expansion of adult education in the Gold Coast. There are other objects, such as research. I gather from the Under-Secretary of State that it will be possible for us to make grants of that kind without legislation.
The purpose of the Resolution for which we all voted the other day was that we wanted a collective Commonwealth effort, as well as a United Nations effort, to help each other. I have just returned from the Caribbean. I hope that there will be a Colombo Plan for the Caribbean in which Canada will participate, as well as help being given from the United Nations agencies. Then there is the Colonial Development Corporation. Clause 3 says that the Corporation will be enabled to maintain its interest and continue its operations in established schemes, but will be prevented from entering into further commitments.
I believe that this is the wrong way to deal with this problem. That is why, during our debate on the Gracious Speech, I pressed the Minister to consider the problem as a whole. In March, 1957, we shall cut off the Gold Coast from the Colonial Development Corporation. Some time later, in 1957, we shall cut

off Malaya, in which we have a much bigger interest; in 1958, we shall cut off the Caribbean Federation; and in 1959 somebody else. There is a long list on the way. This is killing the Corporation by stages. It is the wrong way to do it.
In the debate we had the other day, the point was made with real force that the effect will be that the Corporation will lose its best personnel, and its morale, and we shall be wasting public money by handling this problem in that way.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I certainly do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's main theme upon the whole question of economic co-operation in the Commonwealth. It is a fact, however, that when the Corporation goes out of these territories they will be able to obtain benefits flowing from the colonial development and welfare funds.

Mr. Griffiths: All I am sure about for the moment is that the Government should make up their minds now whether there is to be an instrument by and through which Government aid for economic development will be available in this country. If so, is it possible to use the C.D.C. or some other instrument? Let us make that decision rather than have this "death by a thousand cuts"— if I may so put it—which will have a disastrous effect on everyone concerned. I hope that consideration will be given to that problem.
There are three of us here this afternoon—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), the Colonial Secretary and myself—whom the House will permit to have some personal pride in this matter. At various stages we have all three had the privilege of taking part in and offering our aid during this journey towards the independence of the Gold Coast. This Bill represents journey's end. I should like to join in paying tribute to all those who have helped. I wish to pay tribute to the Colonial Service, to the people who have had to work in this transition period. In a sense they are working themselves out of a job, and it is a very great tribute to them to say that in this penultimate stage their experience and knowledge has been given so freely.
In particular, I wish to place on record my deep appreciation of the work of the


Governor, Sir Charles Arden Clarke. He is a great statesman. I was in office when the 1951 Constitution came into operation and I would pay tribute to Dr. Nkrumah, the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast. He came out of prison to become Prime Minister. He had to make the big decision which has had to be made in all the territories, but which has not always been made so wisely as he made it. The party had captured power within the limits of a Constitution which they did not altogether like. They would have preferred a Constitution more democratic and nearer to freedom.
There were two voices within the party; there were those who said, "We have won power. Let us use our power now to get our freedom at once and not (have this half-way house." Dr. Nkrumah used his great personal prestige and influence—it was great then, and it is still great—on the side of using the limited powers of that Constitution and working their passage towards full independence by showing their responsibility. Throughout the whole period Sir Charles Arden Clarke has well served this country and the Commonwealth, and indeed the world, and I should like to pay my sincere tribute to him.
I believe that all hon. Members will vote for the Second Reading of this Bill with a sense of pride and privilege. I shall do so. I join in sending to the Prime Minister, to the Government, to the Opposition—for the members of the Opposition have a part to play, which I hope they will play with a true sense of responsibility—and to all the people of Ghana, a message that this afternoon we look forward to 6th March not only as the day on which they will become independent within a democracy, but the day on which they will join as equal partners in the Commonwealth of Nations.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I do not often agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) but this afternoon I accept almost entirely what he has said, though I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain in office very much longer than he thinks.
We welcome this great experiment and rejoice that the Bill granting indepen-

dence to Ghana is introduced by a Conservative Administration. At the time when there are so many taunts about imperialistic colonialism, especially against the Conservatives, it is splendid that a Bill of this kind should be introduced, and that the first African Dominion should be sponsored by Her Majesty's present Government. It has been possible to introduce this Measure largely because of the great responsibility shown by the present leaders in the Gold Coast Government. With many other hon. Gentlemen in this House, I am lucky enough to have a great many Ghananian friends, and I hope they will forgive me if I am a little critical of one or two statements which have been made by some of their politicians.
The election was rightly fought on the unity of the Gold Coast. Economically it would be madness to divide the Gold Coast and to have four separate constitutions, but I must quote from one or two of the statements made by the Opposition. They say that the British Government are irresponsible and have betrayed the Gold Coast, and may cause bloodshed and suffering by not allowing a federation. They say that if they do not get their way, the Ashanti, the Northern Territories and Togoland will have no alternative but to take the standpoint that they are independent but separate entities. I deplore that statement, but I understand it, and I only hope that the great statesmanship which has, so far, been shown by Dr. Nkrumah may, in the coming months, so bring both sides together that a reasonable compromise may be achieved.
I understand that the Opposition fears that, with the two-thirds majority the Convention People's Party have in the Assembly, the constitution, although written in various Orders in Council for all the world to see, may be swept away in the coming years. Though I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelly that the different regional assemblies should have the power to raise a portion of their own revenue, as well as that given to them by the central Government, I should like to make a plea for a second Chamber representing the different regional assemblies, and given the power to deal with constitutional matters only. Were there a second Chamber of that kind, surely it could then deal with minor matters of


agreement quite easily; and if there were disagreement, it would ensure that an election would have to ensue, and that a Constitutional Bill would have to be passed in two successive Parliaments. This would be a real safeguard for the Gold Coast minority.

Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman says he thinks that there ought to be a second Chamber. Has he any ideas to offer about from where the membership of a second Chamber is to be drawn? The suggestion has been made from the Opposition that it should be a regional council of chiefs. The hon. Gentleman may feel the same objection to that as I do, but can he suggest from what other sources the membership of such a Chamber could be drawn without disaster?

Mr. Tilney: I should like it taken from the different regional assemblies. But it should be limited, and the members, senators—call them what we will—given the power to deal with constitutional matters only and not the power to deal with finance or general day-to-day administration. I believe that would be a good safeguard for the minority in the Gold Coast.
I wish to turn to the question of trade. The British went to the Gold Coast to trade, and will remain to trade long after their political power has been handed over. I think that I ought to declare a minor interest, as I am a director of a company which operates throughout West Africa. I still maintain that it is vital to the Gold Coast and to this country to have the greatest amount of trade, for our mutual benefit.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly was quite right to be worried about the present price of cocoa and about what may happen in the coming years to a newly-founded country that runs out of money. In the last decade the Gold Coast has been a great bulwark to the Sterling Area. It has produced about 25 per cent. of the net dollar earnings of the Colonial Commonwealth. I only hope that we can be imaginative and can hive off the Bank of England, partly into a Bank of the United Kingdom dealing with our own affairs and partly into a great Commonwealth Bank and head of the Sterling Area, on the Board of which representatives of the Gold Coast and Malaya can find a seat.
Now I would refer to the great scheme of the Volta. Many hon. Members have a copy of the splendid booklet about this imaginative scheme, made much more difficult now by the activities of President Nasser. If we are to extend our Commonwealth trade and the Western way of life throughout the free world it is vital that we should help under-developed territories such as Ghana. Here I put in a plea for Her Majesty's Overseas Service which up to now has done a splendid job of work but whose financial plateau of compensation has been frozen until 1959, when it will then start to descend.
I am frightened that just at the time when ideas and help are needed, many of these people may leave Ghana, unless some arrangement that they can be kept is made by treaty between the independent Government of Ghana and the United Kingdom.
I put in a plea also—not solely to the Colonial Development Corporation or to the Colonial Development and Welfare organisation, but to the Treasury—that private enterprise should be induced, either by Overseas Trade Corporation registration or in some other way, to go in and develop further these African territories. I note that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already offered to help organisations such as the Pioneer Industries. But many other companies are already there and it is of mutual interest that they should stay there and expand.
This great experiment will be watched by the whole world and it must be made to succeed. If it does not, the outlook indeed is dark. If it does, we can look forward to a period of expansion and to a world that will not be divided into camps of different colours.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am in some sympathy with the fears which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), particularly regarding the power of the Prime Minister of Ghana and, secondly, regarding the economy of that country. I rise with some trepidation, because this is the first time I have attempted to speak in a colonial affairs debate. One of my reasons for doing so is the fact that I was a member of the Parliamentary delegation which visited the Gold Coast during the last General Election.
I will come straight to the point. It may surprise hon. Members that on my trip out there I was amazed that such a Colony should be on the verge of independence in its present state. I am convinced that Ghana, following independence day, will at least stand still, particularly in the Northern Territories. That opinion may be due to the fact that I spent a lot of my time in the Northern Territories, in Ashanti, and not sufficient time in the more progressive areas of the south.
The country has a fragile economy, mainly dependent upon its cocoa crop. The trend in world prices of cocoa were unfavourable to the Gold Coast in 1955, and I do not think there will be any prospect of a return to the 1954 abnormal levels. This fact is bound to prove one of the most worrying features of the situation. In the Northern Territories, the only other industry of note is agriculture, but the surface of this has hardly been scratched in teaching the northerners a progressive method of farming. There is an appalling shortage of competent Africans to run the agricultural stations.
Ghana is still a very much underdeveloped State. The Government are certainly investing in public services like transport and education, but there is not sufficient Government or private investment in industrial expansion. This fact may also tend to upset the economy.
I took particular note of what the right hon. Gentleman said in opening the debate, which was that Ghana will have to prove itself before investment starts to pour in. In view of the unrest which seems to prevail at this time, so shortly before independence day, it may be some time before investors are likely to pour cash in, particularly upon industrial projects. However, we must recognise that the pace has been set. I realise, of course, the feeling in the minds of Gold Coast people. Their speed of advancement and tempo is such that independence cannot even be delayed.
The Colonial Secretary's statement that a firm date for independence would be given following a reasonable majority in a newly-elected Legislative Assembly has been honoured. This must be recognised at all costs. If the Colonial Secretary went back on his word we would face another Cyprus. The Colonial

Secretary's intervention has given independence to them two years earlier than was expected. Those two years would have proved invaluable in cementing relations between the present factions and also in putting the Government and the development of the Northern Territories on a firmer basis. This is a very badly neglected area. It is still regarded by many people solely as a reservoir of labour for the south.
The Colonial Secretary is bound to be in somewhat of a dilemma. First of all, he has granted independence. If he had not done so, an ugly situation might have arisen. Secondly, independence has been granted although the country is by no means ready as a whole to receive it. In view of this situation, I would draw the attention of the Colonial Secretary to a few points arising out of the last General Election, and to my observations on the future of Ghana.
The General Election was held on two days, 12th and 17th July. The reasons were mainly a shortage of troops and police in the whole country, and secondly, the lack of experienced Africans and shortage of Europeans to man the polling booths and counting centres and to act as returning officers. This situation is bound now to deteriorate. Already many Europeans are planning to leave the country. It might be very helpful when the Colonial Secretary replies if he could give us an indication how many Europeans have notified that they are leaving and how that trend may develop.
Those who are in the age 40 group, realising that they still have a chance elsewhere, are going now. As the tendency towards Africanisation develops, the number of Europeans will be whittled down to insignificance. Even at its present strength the staff available has been grossly overworked, particularly in trying to register the electorate and to organise the election. The weakness of the election was undoubtedly registration.
I recognise that it is a very difficult job to deal with people who are totally illiterate. They cannot read or write, and in many cases they have the same Christian or surnames, were born on the same day, have the same occupation and come from the same village. When they appear to register their names on the burgess roll, they can only pronounce


their names. Registering people, many of whom have the same name, the same occupation and the same village, is almost an insurmountable task.
In arty forthcoming General Election this task, without European assistance, will prove formidable, to say the least. There were more disturbances on polling day over this difficulty than over anything else. Many were turning up to vote not having registered and others, having registered, found they had not a vote because someone had voted in their name. The frustration and deep mistrust which follows in the mind of an illiterate person can result in undermining completely the effectiveness of an election and to some extent may ridicule the results. This matter is worthy of serious consideration by the Colonial Secretary before independence day.
Secondly, there have been no local government actions during the past three years and the whole system of local government is in jeopardy. Elected representatives are out of touch with their electors, few meetings are taking place and, in some instances, councillors have left their electoral districts. I am sorry about this for two reasons. First, it shows a dangerous tendency for the Prime Minister to act in a dictatorial manner in so far as he has been primarily responsible for the postponement of those elections. Secondly, valuable opportunities have slipped by which would have proved very important for training Africans in registration and organisation of elections.
I therefore urge the Colonial Secretary to sec that steps are taken to encourage developments of the local government system. I also urge Dr. Nkrumah to strengthen the broad base of the pyramid of his democracy. This is an essential for a true Parliamentary democracy. I hope this House and our nation are going to be proud of the Gold Coast following March next year. I honestly and sincerely hope so, but I have my fears which I feel I must express.
First, there have been no local government elections in the last three years, which does not augur well for the future of Ghana. Dr. Nkrumah is life chairman of the Central People's Party and is feeling joyously powerful following the General Election in which it gained 71 of the 104 seats. The National Liberation Movement, which is really the heart

of the Opposition and is not devoid of intelligence, has been subjected to a humiliating defeat in view of the fact that it anticipated doing very well and better than in the last election. In fact, it is the third party in strength, not even an alternative to the Government, the Northern People's Party having that pride of place. The Ashanti has been weakened and, indeed, split. The C.P.P. has captured the Brong area and had 43 per cent. of the poll in Ashanti.
Another factor which is of great importance is the growth of frustration which will be inevitable—although no one knows to what degree. There is a very large percentage of illiterates in the Gold Coast—probably 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. throughout the territories and at least 95 per cent. in the Northern Territories. They imagine freedom and independence to mean many things—that the police will wink an eye at all they do, that police are no longer needed because they are now independent. Small shopkeepers think that now they will receive loans from the Prime Minister to build big stores and so on. Frustration is hound to develop after independence day. It is understandable that the quick change of name from "The Gold Coast of West Africa" to "Ghana of the Commonwealth" will not as rapidly bring about the much needed advances in agriculture, education and industry which are so urgently desirable.
Those frustrations may well be canalised by the National Liberation Movement into active opposition against the Government. The real danger then will be whether the Prime Minister will follow a pattern which has been adopted before with his local government elections and—sensing this growing opposition—postpone the Parliamentary election also. I hope not, but we may well have seen the last General Election in the Gold Coast. I think that is a very real danger.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If the Gold Coast Government and Parliament enshrine these fundamental rights in their constitution, will not that be a guarantee?

Mr. Mason: I think my right hon. Friend is correct, but there is still the danger—I would not put it higher than that, and perhaps not even as badly as that—that the two-thirds majority of the


Legislative Assembly can change any of the constitutional amendments we want to put in between now and independence day. Dr. Nkrumah can get that any time he requires. In view of the fact that a two-thirds majority can amend the constitution—sensing the growing opposition particularly in the district of Ashanti and so on from the Northern People's Party—Nkrumah might amend the constitution and postpone the Parliamentary election.
The National Liberation Movement and the Northern People's Party are not pure innocents in this matter either. As a supposedly responsible Parliamentary Opposition, they have acted in a very childlike fashion by walking out and boycotting important discussions and debates—all dealing with their country's future—no fewer than seven times. They also must act in a more responsible and statesmanlike manner if a true Parliamentary democracy is to emerge. Probably, however, they have sensed a trend towards dictatorship, particularly when one of the outstanding points of difference still remains between them and the Government—that the police force should be regionalised as a check against possible dictatorship. The leaders of the Opposition, including Professor Busia, have publicly declared, also, that if there is no agreement on the constitution by independence day, Ashanti and the Northern Territories may secede from the Gold Coast. This is a most serious threat, and it too is a dictatorial attitude.
Much yet remains to be done and, in view of these observations, fearing civil strife, and possible dictatorship, I ask the Colonial Secretary to make a visit to the Gold Coast before independence day and, out of his vast experience of colonial affairs, to help the Government and the Opposition to work out a solution of agreement, a solution which might iron out many of the differences which remain. We want a truly democratic State to emerge, one of which this nation can be proud. I urge the Colonial Secretary to act on this and to act now.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I must confess that I view this Bill with mixed feelings. I associate myself entirely with the expressions of

good will that have been voiced by other hon. Members who have spoken, but I cannot repress certain misgivings about the future of the Gold Coast.
I do not think my misgivings are so deep as those expressed by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), but they are sincerly held. I want to emphasise that I voice them with no sense of criticism, but only in the hope that by ventilating them in this debate the cause of those misgivings might be overcome.
I am not without some experience of the Gold Coast territory. I spent fifteen years on the West Coast of Africa prior to 1946 and have visited the Gold Coast twice in the last six months. Therefore, I have been able to assess the progress which has been made, both economically and politically, in the last ten years. I admit that it has been impressive, but it is quite clear that political advancement has outstripped economic progress. I think it would be over-optimistic to assert that in the short space of ten years the Gold Coast has emerged from a state of complete dependence on Whitehall to a position in which she can be entirely self-reliant and independent. That could not be so when she has still to rely on the services of senior British officials in every sphere of activity.
I was very pleased that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) voiced a tribute to the British Civil Service. The very fact that we are today granting independence to the Gold Coast is surely proof of the magnificent work which has been done by generations of British officials in bringing the country from a primitive state to its present position. That tribute does not mean that their task is at an end. For some time yet the Gold Coast will have to rely on British officials for administration and for good order and development in the country.
Africanisation has made great progress in recent years, but it is not possible for these senior men to be replaced by Africans in the short term. Nobody who has knowledge of the territory would dispute that if there were a sudden and considerable exodus of British officials within the next year or so, there would be a virtual collapse of the economy and a breakdown of law and order. It is, therefore, very important that a nucleus should remain.
Unfortunately, many of them are leaving. Compensation terms have been offered by the Gold Coast Government and have been frozen until 1959, but despite that, senior officials are leaving. The guarantees are not sufficient for them to remain. The House will remember that some time ago a White Paper was introduced providing a special list to which British overseas officials could transfer if they were working in those Colonies which were moving towards independence. This would give them an umbrella of protection by the Colonial Office in order that they could be assured of continuity of career. That White Paper did not apply to the Gold Coast, which had already reached a stage of self-government which excluded it from the scope of the proposals.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The Gold Coast could, of course, be added to that list. There is nothing to prevent that.

Mr. Pannell: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that statement. I will not pursue the matter further if I have an assurance that the possibility of the list being extended to the Gold Coast is being considered.
Hon. Members have mentioned the internal dissensions in the Gold Coast. I agree that it is of the utmost importance that before independence the parties should get together and settle these differences, but I urge that we cannot do a Pontius Pilate act in this matter; we cannot dissociate ourselves from all responsibility. Her Majesty's Government have responsibility for this Colony until 6th March, and it is the Government's duty to do everything possible to ensure that when that day comes, Ghana shall not be riven by internal strife which might even lead to bloodshed.
I believe that the Government should offer their good services to bring together the parties in this dispute to see whether some final solution can be reached. I do not think the differences are as great as has been suggested. From my contacts with the Opposition in the Gold Coast—and I wish in no sense to take sides in this matter—I do not think that its attitude is as intransigent as it may seem. A gesture is needed, and if Her Majesty's Government could bring the

parties together it would be an excellent thing.
The Government have declared their intention of incorporating in the Order in Council, which has yet to be introduced, provisions relating to regional Assemblies. That, I think, is an exception. There is no intention to incorporate many constitutional provisions in the Order in Council, but I think it would help to allay the fears of the Opposition in the Gold Coast if the agreement finally reached on this matter were incorporated in the Order in Council.
We must go further than that. Under the proposed constitution of the Gold Coast, the Government can amend the constitution any time by the decision of a two-thirds majority of the Assembly. Since the Government parties already enjoy a two-thirds majority, the constitution can be changed at any moment. I honestly hold the view that there should be a delaying Clause. If there were a second Chamber, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has suggested, it would perhaps provide a solution, but I think there will be difficulty about the formation of a second Chamber, and if it cannot be formed, I suggest that at least there should be some provision in the constitution providing that any amendment of the constitution shall not be effective unless it is confirmed by the next General Election. Such a provision could be confined to matters of radical importance and need not include minor points.
If Her Majesty's Government, within the limits of their responsibility, were to put these provisions into the Order in Council so that the Opposition in the Gold Coast know, not only that what has been agreed has been incorporated in an Order in Council but also that there is a delaying Clause to prevent the constitution from being brusquely overturned on the attainment of independence, that would be all to the good. We know, of course, that after 6th March, the State of Ghana will be in a position to do what it likes with the constitution. It can tear up the old constitution and provide a new constitution. That is what the Bill says. Nevertheless, it would have a great moral effect if the various Orders in Council incorporated such provisions


which had been accepted by the Gold Coast Government. I think they would have great reluctance about brusquely introducing new provisions contrary to them immediately after achieving their independence.
I should like to deal with the question of investment of overseas capital in the Gold Coast. It has been suggested that C.D.C. funds should continue to be employed. In my view, the test of independence is the ability of a country to promote its own development and to attract such capital from outside as it needs. The attraction of outside capital depends on the atmosphere of confidence created by the country concerned, and no one would say, so far, that there is supreme confidence in the stability or the security of capital which may be invested in the Gold Coast in the future. There is a hope, but there can be no more than a hope until experience has proved that the State of Ghana can give security for capital investment.
Everybody hopes that that will happen, but several years must pass before that situation arises, and it is essential that the Gold Coast should give the greatest possible guarantees for capital investment in the territory. That may be of supreme importance in the River Volta scheme, which many consider essential for the future development of the Gold Coast and which far outweighs any consideration of the use of C.D.C. funds.
According to the Gold Coast Government's constitutional proposals, as they already appear in the Order in Council No. 36A of 1955, in the case of compulsory appropriation of property by the Government—I suppose that is a euphemism for nationalisation—there is to be adequate compensation and recourse on appeal to the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast. It is proposed to retain recourse to the Privy Council. After recourse to the Supreme Court in the Gold Coast, a dissatisfied claimant will have recourse to the Privy Council. Doubt remains whether he will have such recourse only on a point of law or on the amount of compensation, and it would be interesting if that point could be clarified.
Here, again, any firm that thinks of investing money in the Gold Coast will look also at the constitution, and will observe this ability of a two-thirds majority

to amend it. This reinforces the advisability of including a delaying clause in the constitution and in the Orders in Council that will be issued up to 6th March.
I have so far spoken of money being invested in the Gold Coast in the future, but I think there is an obligation on Her Majesty's Government in relation to the money already invested there. Such firms as the gold mining companies have sunk millions of pounds in the Gold Coast, and invested it in circumstances which gave a reasonable assurance of continued British protection. I do not think that the British Government can callously abandon such enterprises to the caprice of the successor Government. That is why I advise the Government to use what influence they can bring to bear, and to see that the safeguards are incorporated in the Orders in Council which may be issued, and which may later be honoured by an independent Ghana.
Self-government for the Gold Coast marks the end of an aim and the beginning of a challenge. In itself, it will achieve nothing unless the new régime is as efficient as the old. I hope that the Coast Coast will face this challenge with courage and resolution, so that the new independent State of Ghana may, in due course, occupy a worthy and honoured place in the comity of nations and in the British Commonwealth.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I am grateful for the opportunity of being able to show my complete concurrence with what has been said by the Colonial Secretary and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). This is another day added to the memorable days for which this House is famous. On such occasions, we cannot help but recall a few of those past memorable days.
There was the great day when this House decided that the responsibility for its own Government should be handed over to Canada. There was the day when it decided that self-government should be handed over to the then separate States which now form the Commonwealth of Australia. Another occasion was when it was decided that the responsibility for its government should be restored to the Transvaal and to the Orange Free State, which later led to the formation of South Africa. Much more recently, there have


been the cases of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma. Now we are passing the responsibility for its own government to the Gold Coast.
The step we are now taking is even more remarkable, because it starts what I am convinced is a new era in Africa. It has been said that this event will be noted outside of Africa, but, in particular, it will be noted in Africa itself. The eyes of all Africans will be upon this new independent country, watching the way in which it develops. Very rightly, one desires to congratulate the Government, and especially the Secretary of State on the part he has played. One congratulates all those who have gradually led the Gold Coast to this point, and especially whose splendid public servants, the members of the Colonial Service, either here at home or actually serving in the Colony.
Having said that, let us also praise the people of this country. It is a wonderful thing that they have done. Only fifty years ago the idea of self-government, of democracy, was not only unknown, but unheard of in the Gold Coast. In my young days, at the beginning or just before the beginning of this century, the only book one could read about this area was one called "Through Darkest Africa", written by Henry Morton Stanley, who afterwards became a Member of this House. Yet, in half a century, this nation has had such an influence on these people—through its Government, through the officials it sent out, through its traders, its missionaries and its teachers —that they not only desire self-government but self-government in the form which has been passed on from this country. It is a wonderful tribute to our people.
I do not think it right that we should in any way criticise what has been happening fairly recently. Many of the things which have been mentioned were not very unfamiliar in this country only fifty years ago. The responsibility now passes to those people, and I am quite sure that they will undertake it and will be able to surmount the difficulties which are bound to beset them at this early stage. The less we interfere, the better —even with advice. It is best that they should find their own way of dealing with these things.
I was fortunate enough to spend some considerable time on the Gold Coast in 1938 and 1939. Like other hon. Members, I formed a great regard for the people of Ashanti and of the Northern Territories. I can well understand their present ambitions. I have every sympathy with their desire to follow their own customs. They have a different tradition, a different origin, and all the rest. Nevertheless, I think that at this moment the decision is right that they should all combine together for the general common good. I am also quite sure that, as development takes place, more and more their own local councils will have to deal with their own local conditions. But this is a vulnerable new State and, therefore, the more closely they can work together the better it will be.
Will they realise that in getting their independence, throwing away any idea of colonialism, the people of the Gold Coast are now joining that family as equal partners? That is the great thing. That being so, they can look to the other members of the family for any assistance they may require. Let us also extend to them just the same kind of privileges which we expect for ourselves.
Reference has very rightly been made to that wonderful link there is between us which is to be found in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. These people have such confidence in us and in the administration of justice that they bring their cases here to that final tribunal. But let that tribunal also be strengthened by bringing one of their learned judges to sit with our own judges, to the advantage of the whole tribunal.
Having spoken my words of congratulation, I finish on this note. We all wish these people well. They bear responsibility to their own country but a great responsibility also to all the other Africans, wherever they may be, throughout that great continent.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I intervene very briefly, because I also had the privilege of being a member of the Parliamentary delegation which acted as observers during the General Election—a delegation, if I may say so, which was very ably led by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson).
I am not quite as pessimistic as my two colleagues, and I should like to say two things which make me more optimistic than they appear to be. I was very greatly impressed by the general good-natured tolerance of the people of the Gold Coast. I think that that is really a fundamental part of democracy. I was also very impressed by the ability and integrity of many of the politicians I met, members of both the C.P.P. and the N.L.M. I believe that it is upon the integrity and the ability of the politicians that the Gold Coast experiment must depend. I was impressed by the feeling that, whatever the difficulties, they will make a serious and genuine attempt to make this experiment work.
I should like also to join with those hon. Members who have expressed appreciation of the European Administration. I should like to give an illustration of an expression of the confidence in that Administration. I spent a good deal of my time in Kumasi, where occasionally things were quite rough and troublesome. I cannot, however, claim to have suffered any personal danger, because the advice that I was given was that at night I should turn on the lights inside my car. If I was seen to be white, I was absolutely at no risk at all. I can think of no greater tribute to the Administration, when there was overtly and patently ill-feeling and rowdyism, that in displaying oneself as a white man one was absolutely safe. This is certainly a great tribute to the white Administration.
At the same time, I should not like to take a discouraging view of the Africanisation of the service. It has been carried out at a very rapid rate, but by and large I think it has been very successful.

Mr. N. Pannell: I do not take a pessimistic view of it. I say that it is just not possible to produce in five years administrators with twenty years experience.

Mr. Willey: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible. I appreciate the difficulties, but the success so far attained shows that it would be wrong to describe it as unattainable and impossible. On the whole, I am heartened by the progress which has been made.
I do not want to say much about the difficulties which will inevitably face the Gold Coast Government. In passing, however, I would say that the difficulties of providing for a multi-racial community have been demonstrated. A multi-racial community does not only mean a community which is divided by colour. Here we have a country which has got no ethnological basis. It was created by the division of Africa by the European Powers. I am sure that we all concede now that this country must remain, but the fact that it was so created presents enormous difficulties for any Government.
I take the view that if we believe in self-determination, in spite of the difficulties, we must entrust the solution of the difficulties to the new Government and afford it Statute of Westminster powers. We have got to hope that the ability so far displayed by the Gold Coast politicians will enable them successfully to tackle the difficult constitutional problems facing the Government.
There must obviously be some devolution. I would express, again in passing, my opinion that politically I am more sympathetic to the London County Council than I am to the constitution of the Government in Northern Ireland, which again, if I may say so, was an attempt to meet the difficulty of providing constitutions for a multi-racial community but I think we have learned a lot since the division, of Ireland. I hope, as other hon. Members have said, that there will be a genuine effort to allay fears by trying to reach a sensible workable scheme of devolution.
As I have said, these are not matters for us to determine. But in the light of our present experiences and difficulties now facing us with regard to the Gold Coast, I think there is something to be said for our own Government considering a constitutional way of adopting, as part of our constitution, the European Convention of Human Rights. I know that constitutional lawyers will argue till kingdom come on the advantages of a written and unwritten constitution, but as we are going to have a succession of these problems facing us as we recognise further Colonies establishing the right to self-government, I think we should realistically face the problem and see whether it


would be better for us to have, as part of our constitution, a declaration of rights so that we could make it quite clear that this was our view of the rights of the individual which help to bind us together in the Commonwealth.
However difficult these constitutional problems may be—and they are inherent in the situation on the Gold Coast—we must recognise the right of the Government of the Gold Coast to try to seek the best solution they can to these problems. We can do no more than proffer them such helpful advice as they may seek.
May I say a word or two about the economic difficulties? I think we all recognise that there is a danger of political development always outrunning economic development. I think it is correct to say that there is a connection between the welfare side of society and democracy. Again this necessarily places very real difficulties upon the new Gold Coast Government because great expectations will follow self-determination.
We should realise, too, that this will make a heavy economic toll upon us. Just as politically we must realise that it is our conception of human rights and human dignity which binds us together, so in the Commonwealth we must recognise that there is a common duty on the different members of the Commonwealth to improve the standards of life of everyone in the Commonwealth. That is a difficult matter, and perhaps it is impossible for us to tackle alone. That is why I welcome what the Under-Secretary of State said.
As a Commonwealth, we have to consider this problem. I am sure we are all obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) for the proposals he has put forward. I think it is better to regard them, as I believe the Under-Secretary did, in the light of the Colombo Plan, and to say perhaps that we want a new and revised conception of the economic responsibilities of all members of the Commonwealth and the best machinery which we can formulate and fashion to ensure that aid is given where it is most required.
I do not think, however, that we need be too pessimistic about the Gold Coast. Difficulties are arising connected with the main crop, cocoa, but, on the other hand, there are real possibilities for economic development in the Gold Coast. If we

can get a joint Commonwealth approach to such problems as arise, for instance, in the Volta River scheme, I think investment in that country will certainly pay for itself.
It so happens in the nature of things in the Gold Coast that the new Government, on achieving self-determination, will face very teal and difficult problems both politically and economically. We have got to trust the Gold Coast to do its best to tackle and solve those problems, and a Commonwealth formula must be found in order to provide the utmost aid to enable the Gold Coast to seek a solution to these difficulties. Out of this joint endeavour we may maintain and vindicate the British Commonwealth of nations which is perhaps the most important factor in world peace today.
We have said very hard things about recent events in Suez during the past few weeks. I do not wish to stir up old troubles, but I think it is fortunate that today we can, on both sides of the House, show our belief in the future of the Commonwealth. We believe that this new emergent black Dominion has an important part to play. We can agree, undivided by partisanship, and show our confidence in the British Commonwealth, a Commonwealth now being enriched by a new Dominion, and which has still a vitally important part to play in world history.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I echo the concluding words of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in saying that this is one of the occasions, only too rare in the last few weeks, when there has been a great deal of agreement and accord between both sides of the House. I should like also to refer to the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in drawing attention to the tremendous progress made over the last fifty years in the advance towards self-government and independence in the Colonial Territories for which we have responsibility.
In the Gold Coast, the progress has been really quite astounding. Since the 1946 Burns Constitution—which provided for the first time for an elected majority of Africans on the Legislative Council—up to 6th March next year, independence day, there is a space of a little less than eleven years. Even when one takes into


account the part which Africans themselves played in their own Government in the years prior to 1946— and the name of Sir Ofori Atta should be particularly remembered in that respect—it is a very short time indeed for so much to have happened, especially when we remember the hundreds of years taken by us in building up our still very imperfect democracy.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery said, it speaks a great deal for British democracy and the British form of government that so many countries have taken it as a model, and that now the State of Ghana should wish to follow it herself. I remember one of the sayings attributed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)—which I shall probably misquote—that, "Of all forms of government democracy is the worst, except any other form of government." That is very true. The fact that we have arrived at the point when we are about to see a Colonial Territory emerge into self-government is a tremendous credit to all those who have been concerned with it over the years.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) paid a tribute to certain people who had been responsible, and I should like to add my word of praise, if I might be allowed to do so, in all humility. The work of the late Oliver Stanley should not be forgotten. The draft constitution which he approved in 1945, which was brought in by the Labour Government in 1946, laid the foundation for the rapid development of self-government we are now witnessing.
Lord Chandos, who was at one time Colonial Secretary in this House, did great work; it was Lord Chandos who appointed Dr. Nkrumah as the Prime Minister after he came out of gaol to take that appointment. Furthermore, we must not forget the work of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, whose patience and understanding during the negotiations which have gone on over the last year or two, culminating in the events we are now discussing, we should not under-rate.
I am happy also to add my tribute to that already expressed on both sides to the loyalty and devotion shown by the

British Colonial Civil Service, the members of which have served the State of Ghana faithfully over the years, very often receiving too little credit for doing so. Their services must have been appreciated, if the efforts of the Gold Coast people to retain them in their service now are any guide at all.
It is sometimes said that Britain acquired a colonial empire in a fit of absent-mindedness. So far as the Gold Coast is concerned, it is true to say that our prime interest there was trade; we did not want to take over the responsibility of government. When we did take it up, we accepted the responsibilities, I think we can fairly claim, to the best of our ability, and the Gold Coast would have been poorer socially and economically if we had not played our part in its administration.
The Gold Coast is now to disappear and the State of Ghana is to emerge. I must confess that I am a little sorry to lose the name "Gold Coast". It has certain romantic associations which particularly appealed to me when I was young. It has an association also with the actual word "gold", which has almost passed into the far distance as far as most of us are concerned. It has, however, at least two links with the new State of Ghana.
The two links which my researches have shown are these. First, the wealth of the old State of Ghana was built upon gold; indeed, I believe it was the custom for the nuggets of gold—which were very plentiful in the area at that time—to belong to the king and for the gold dust to belong to the people. That was, I believe, a custom which remained in Ashanti for very many years, until the British Administration took over. The other link is found in ancient history, which tells us that Ghana was first ruled by "white kings" who were then succeeded by negro kings—a point of some similarity, perhaps, in the history of Ghana and the Gold Coast. I can only hope that this rebirth of an old name will help the birth of a new nation.
As many hon. Members have said, there are many problems ahead for the Gold Coast Government. As we have heard, they have not succeeded altogether in persuading Ashanti and a large part of the Northern Territories and Togoland


that their future and traditions are safe in the hands of Dr. Nkrumah and the majority People's Party. There have been charges of corruption, bribery and nepotism, and allegations that public funds have been used for election purposes, which have soured the atmosphere. But we must, I think, remember that these things are not taken quite so seriously in the Gold Coast area as they might be over here. People are more accustomed there to a different standard of political morality from the one we have set for ourselves over several hundred years of development.
It has been said, and I very much regret it, that the Ashanti will secede as an independent State under the Asantehene. I hope it is not true; I hope that wiser counsels will prevail. I hope it is not true that, while Accra celebrates independence day on 6th March, the Kumasi will completely boycott the celebrations. I know that the Northern Territories, despite the fact that the C.P.P. won 11 out of the 26 seats, are still uneasy about their future under the new constitution. Togoland, if the representations made by her delegates to the United Nations Trusteeship Council are anything to go by, is uneasy too at joining a State whose constitution is still a little uncertain.
The uneasiness, as we know, revolves around this question of devolution of power and of safeguards for the constitution. I do not want to discuss the regional assemblies and the question of how much power they should or should not have. I should, however, like to dwell for a few moments on the constitutional safeguard against an abrupt change in the constitution after 6th March.
It is true to say that, at the moment, it would be possible for the Ghana Government, after 6th March, possessing already, as the majority party, the necessary two-thirds majority, to change the constitution within a matter of days, perhaps even overnight. This leads to a fear in the minds of the Ashanti, the Northern Territories and the Togoland peoples, and a suspicion that that is perhaps what might in fact happen.
I wonder whether it might be possible to provide a check upon any sudden changes by having a safeguard which would impose the necessity for a two-thirds majority in each of the regional assemblies, making, it necessary for any

change in the Constitution to go through the regional assemblies and he passed in the same manner there as in the national Parliament. I merely throw that out as an idea. In my view, we must find some way to ensure that the Constitution can not be abruptly changed; there should be plenty of opportunity for reflection and consultation with regional opinion in the country.
From what I can understand from the reading I have done, it seems to me that Dr. Nkrumah, the Prime Minister, has done his best to meet many of the Opposition points. I do not think that the Opposition have altogether helped by following the example of Hector, sulking in their tents and boycotting the various conferences, boycotting even the House itself.
I do not believe that it is necessarily right or wise to write into a constitution all the safeguards which one thinks are necessary. As Dr. Nkrumah, I notice, began his speech, which I understand lasted three and a half hours, with a quotation from Edmund Burke, perhaps I might quote from the same authority. Edmund Burke once said that
a constitution is a vestment which accommodates itself to the body.
That is a very good definition indeed, but it must be vestment and not a straitjacket. The Government must show the utmost good faith in dealing with the Opposition. But the Opposition also has its responsibilities, because a democracy cannot flourish and be healthy without a strong, well-supported Opposition capable of forming an alternative government if called upon to do so.
It may well be that without the greatest efforts on everybody's part, the events after 6th March may, although we pray they will not, lead to bloodshed. The Ashanti are a proud and virile race. If they feel that they are not to be given what they regard as a reasonable share in the government of the country, there might conceivably be trouble. I would beg Dr. Nkrumah not to put too much faith in majorities. I should like to remind the House of a quotation from one of the late Dr. Inge's works, in which he said:
The seventeenth century, in the person of lames I and Louis XIV, taught that the king can do no wrong, and their successors lost their heads. Hegel and his disciples in Germany taught that the State can do no wrong, and


plunged the world into war. Our doctrinaire democrats teach that the majority can do no wrong, and they bid fair to wreck our civilisation completely.

Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Member be good enough to address those remarks not only to Ghana but to Jamaica?

Mr. Hall: I am dealing with Ghana. I should be very happy to address any remarks that the hon. Member requires to Jamaica when we are debating Jamaica.
One possible consequence of any disturbances which might arise following differences of opinion on the constitution is the question of what is to happen to the police and the army in Ghana. There are at present in Ghana. I believe, some 400 British officers and N.C.O.s. It may well be that if there are disturbances, the first thing to happen would be that the police, in many cases officered by British officers, would be called upon to deal with those riots. That in itself would be serious enough, but what would be much worse would be if the army was called upon to deal with riots and had to conduct operations against the Ashanti or any other part of the population of Ghana, officered by British officers and N.C.O.s. That would be deplorable.
What is the position of those officers and N.C.O.s? I understand that they are seconded from the British Army to the Gold Coast.

Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member looks back at Questions which I have asked, he will see that the Secretary of State for War has mentioned secondment of the officer commanding but has talked about British officers and N.C.O.s being on contracts. I entirely agree that we ought to be told by the Government today what form these contracts take.

Mr. Hall: I thank the hon. Member for making that part of my speech for me. That is precisely the question I was going to ask my hon. Friend. We would like to know what is the form of these contracts and whether, if those officers and N.C.O.s so wish, they can bring them to an end and what will be their future. Are they able to return to the British Army, or what will happen to them?
I had intended to talk at some little length on the economy of the Gold Coast

after independence day, but in view of the many things which have been said already about it I will confine my remarks to drawing attention to one factor. At the moment, it is Whitehall that decides whether the Gold Coast should draw upon dollars for dollar expenditure. After 6th March, that will no longer apply and the Gold Coast will tend to buy in the cheapest market and in the market which gives the quickest delivery. As far as I can see, it will become virtually a hard currency country.
Although a great opportunity is provided for enterprising and industrial undertakings, we cannot rely too much upon our traditional associations with that country. We must compete with many people against whom we have in the past been partly protected. On the other hand, the Gold Coast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) pointed out, requires capital investment, which it can attract only if it shows to investors that it will provide a stable, sound and honest Government based on the rule of law. I should like to think that the Public Service Corn-mission and the Judicial Service Commission will be completely free from any form of political interference. It may well be that they are, but assurances on that point would be welcome.
I do not want to weary the House any further about the many problems and opportunities which are likely to be open to Ghana after 6th March—they are well known to us. If I may adapt the words used by nearly every hon. and right hon. Member who has spoken, we are today writing the first page of a new chapter of the history of our Commonwealth, a page which will affect not only our own territory, but developing Colonial Territories both in and outside the British Commonwealth. Whether the succeeding pages of that history will be bright and glowing with the success of that act of faith or will be dark and sombre and tinged with the blood of riots, insurrections and wars, depends entirely upon the statesmanship of all men of authority in Ghana today.
With that, I will just add my own good wishes to those that have been expressed by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and say that we must, all of us, wish all those men in authority and the new State of Ghana God-speed.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: A notable feature of this debate is that there has not been a dissenting note to the chorus of welcome with which we contemplate the prospective emergence of the State of Ghana. Therefore, amidst all our forebodings and regrets at what has been happening in recent weeks, we should at least take to heart, in contrast with what has been happening in Hungary, where a nation is struggling to get free but cannot do so because of violent repression, the fact that we have in Africa a nation which is not only struggling to get free, but is being encouraged to get free and is being welcomed into this splendid institution, the British Commonwealth. That in itself is highly significant.
We may have our difference of opinion, as we have had serious differences regarding incidents in another part of Africa, but against that can be set the great fact that today we welcome the emergence of an independent African nation within the Commonwealth. That in itself is bound to have tremendous progressive repercussions through the whole of Africa and even further afield.
I should like to emphasise that fact again, because I do not believe it has been mentioned before. At this very moment—dramatically, so to speak, this very day—we hear the sombre, tragic reports of what is happening in Hungary in the midst of this ancient civilisation of Europe; we are depressed and saddened by it. Let us hearten ourselves by the fact that in Africa, which used to be thought of as full of darkness and backwardness, we have the emergence of an African State based upon democratic principles and welcomed by, surely, the whole of the free world.
This, however, imposes a very great responsibility on the prospective State of Ghana itself. I hope that there will be many in Ghana, on both the Government side and in the Opposition, who will take to heart what has been said here this afternoon about the measure of responsibility that they must not only display, but must exercise. We do not say that in any condescending way. We say it as brethren within the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, we do say, and say with all earnestness, that if Ghana in the few years immediately ahead breaks down politically and

economically a most serious blow will be struck at the very ideals with which, I am sure, those who have led Ghana towards its present stage began their pilgrimage some years ago.
I beg of the Opposition in that country to appreciate that while we understand their fears and forebodings, while we can understand why it is the Ashanti people should feel they are not an integral part of the country which is about to become Ghana. nevertheless, in the interests of Africa as a whole they should try to transcend their fears and, while quite naturally and validly seeking every guarantee they can, feel that it will serve their own interests best if they accept that they, with the other African peoples, now have the tremendous obligation of working out a constitution which will triumphantly withstand the oncoming strains.
I do not now intend to speak tonight for as long as I had wished, partly because others coming earlier can always expand the case more easily than those who cone later in the queue, but I am grateful for this opportunity to add these few words. I would emphasise what others have said when they have urged that there should be no penalising of Ghana economically because she is now about to become an independent member of the Commonwealth. I can understand why it is that for technical reasons she can no longer receive the benefits which she has been receiving through the agency of colonial and welfare development, but I earnestly hope that a means will be found speedily to ensure that she lacks none of the fulfilment of those needs which are hers, without which fulfilment she may be a free political democracy but will languish because of an unsound economic foundation.
I would say also with others to the people of Ghana that they have got rid of imperialism and they are no longer merely subordinate people working on an imperial estate. Now they are free and equal, or about to be free and equal, with all the other partners in the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, they should appreciate that they will still need a great deal from Europe, and from this country in particular. They have got rid of imperialism and colonialism but they still need our technology, they still need our


administrative experience, they still need our medical knowledge, and, above all—and I say this in no presumptuous way—they still need, I believe, our administrative integrity.
Wherever I have been in any part of the world I have been made aware of the fact that, whatever criticisms may be applied to this country, there is everywhere a profound admiration for the integrity of our Colonial and Civil Service. It is quite true that we were at one time tainted with some of the weakness which, it is alleged, affects so many peoples overseas at the present time, and by no means merely African. It is true we have moved out of that. Heaven forbid that we must anticipate as long a time for the people of Ghana to move out of whatever may be their present weaknesses as it took us to move out of our weaknesses in bygone times. They can learn from our experience, and we, out of our long experience, can do much to enable them to avoid some prolonged misfortunes which otherwise would be theirs.
What every country needs most is the establishment of the principle of absolutely incorruptible integrity. There are many reports which lead one to believe that in some parts of Africa and elsewhere all is not as it should be. I repeat, I do not say that in any condescending way. I know full well they have to learn. I know full well our traditions are very old. I know full well there are great temptations. Nevertheless, I say again for the sake of African freedom in the days to come that I hope that the Government and Opposition parties in Ghana will unite to eradicate corruption and nepotism ruthlessly so that they can build their new constitution on a firm and enduring basis.
I believe that Ghana has this great responsibility, and that it is a responsibility which we should do our best to assist them to fulfil; and a responsibility also to prove, in Africa of all places, that, while down there in the south of Africa African peoples are still looked upon as inferior citizens, in Ghana African peoples are first-class citizens. That is why I particularly welcome the statement by the Government that they are to move that Ghana be admitted to the high status of membership of the Commonwealth. I welcome that most heartily. Nothing I

have heard from the Government Front Bench has encouraged me more than what was said about that today.
If that is done then we shall have within the Commonwealth—the Commonwealth in which I profoundly believe—not only the great coloured nations of Ceylon, India, Pakistan, not only the great white nations of New Zealand, Australia and Canada, not only the rather unfortunate nation of South Africa, but this little country—little, but of great significance, because it is an African State in the Commonwealth. Thus the Commonwealth has a chance of becoming an even greater reality than it is or has been in in the past. I believe in the Commonwealth. Though I have done what I could to liquidate imperialism, whatever I have done I have done because I hoped the whole House would do its best to realise a far nobler concept, and that is the concept of the Commonwealth.
I trust that no discordant or disturbing note will go out from here to either the Government or the Opposition in Ghana. We say to the Government and the Opposition alike, "Go forward on your great mission, not only for yourselves but for the Commonwealth and for the world. Go forward with this great adventure. Do not fail. The whole free world wants and expects you to succeed."

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: With the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) I, too, shall welcome the introduction of Ghana as a Commonwealth nation. I hope that its status as such will be established on 6th March next. I believe that there are many points in the relationship which we foresee between Ghana and the Commonwealth at which there will be stronger links than those between some of the present members of the Commonwealth of Nations.
As several hon. Members have said, this is an historical occasion, the introduction of this Bill to lead to the independence of the Gold Coast. It is not only an historical but, to some of us, it is also an emotional occasion, for we have known the main characters, the main actors in the dramatic events of the past ten or eleven years which have led to this Bill. We have seen their political careers develop. Through personal acquaintance with them, we have known their fears and their


ambitions. Thank heaven, today it is not a party matter in this House. We can all join in wishing this new Commonwealth nation well as it comes into being.
Many hon. Members have contributed to this debate from their own experiences, which, I am sure, is the best contribution that one can offer in a non-partisan debate. I am not alone among hon. Members in having seen great works of development start and come to fruition in the Gold Coast. I have seen them in embryo on an office desk in London and I have seen them become imaginary lines on a plan. Then one has had the thrill and excitement of going to the Gold Coast and seeing these things built there—Takoradi Harbour, Tema Harbour, the railways—all these great civil engineering constructional works, starting in embryo in this country and coming into being there.
Now, as Ghana achieves independence, the West African has to take on that responsibility and, of course, we wonder whether he is capable of doing it. Can he manage to take command of that sort of development for which we have taken the responsibility up to the present? I am extremely optimistic that he can. The West Africans, the men of the Gold Coast, can take on that responsibility and are capable of taking command now of these kinds of developments.
But if they are to do so, there must be constitutional stability within this new nation, because without that Ghana will never obtain the skill and the finance which it needs to seek abroad. It has not entirely the skill and the finance to develop as it is capable of doing, and it will never obtain that finance if there is a doubt about its political future. I do not mean its party political future, but its constitutional future.
I am sure that both the Government and the Opposition in the Gold Coast realise this very fully, and I think that the country itself is embarking upon independence with a full sense of responsibility. If I am wrong, we are obviously heading for a great disaster. If I am right, we are heading for a tremendous future for the Gold Coast. There are, of course, differences between Government and Opposition there. We would not expect it to be otherwise.
I do not take seriously the threat of secession. It is true that resolutions have been sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and have been published, but I cannot feel that there is more than a very small number who would wish to take that step. I am not inclined to take seriously, either, the threats of possible violence. I am sure that the Opposition there has realised, over the past year, that even its passive non-co-operation has not brought very much success and that it can achieve far more by co-operation with the Government party.
If the Opposition there will realise that the Government represent the majority, and if the Government, on their side, will realise that the Opposition represent minorities and that in a young State the minorities need certain constitutional protection, there is a possibility of Teaching a settlement. The Government party there, of course, may in time be only too pleased that at an early stage it introduced constitutional protection, because it might need it itself one day. When one is producing a Constitution for a young State it is right to put in certain fundamental rights and, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, perhaps the Secretary of State could give a lead on this in the next few months and in the necessary Order in Council.
If constitutional protection, by means of fundamental rights written into the Constitution, is necessary, then the rule of law is absolutely essential, and if the rule of law is essential then an independent judiciary is essential. I see the picture in this way. First, there is the economic problem of physical, material developments in civil engineering, and so on, dependent upon the political problem of a stable Government, which, in turn, is buttressed by the constitutional point of fundamental rights, which, in turn, are safeguarded by an independent judiciary. Therefore, I see an independent judiciary as the base of the whole structure, and a base which must be really sound.
West Africa has produced some very fine judges in the past, but not enough to fill its whole judicial bench. It can continue to do so, provided that the Government set their face firmly against political appointments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) said that he hoped that the Judicial Service Commission will remain entirely


independent. I repeat that hope, and I hope that the appointments of judges will be based on advice from the Judicial Service Commission and will be entirely independent of politics. This sort of thing seems so fundamental to us in this country that it may seem to some hon. Members unimportant, because we do not think of our judges as anything else but independent of politics. But there must be a temptation in a new, young State of this sort to seek a politically subservient bench.
The standard of the judiciary must, of course, depend upon the profession from which it is drawn. Only a few months ago I discussed with Dr. Nkrumah the division of the profession there. At present, it is fused. There is no separation between the solicitors' branch and the barristers. Every lawyer endeavours to be an advocate and an office worker and that does not make for proficiency in either occupation. I believe that a division of the profession would give a far better basis for an efficient, independent judiciary of entire integrity.
I join with the right hon. Member for Llanelly and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in their plea for strengthening the link which Dr. Nkrumah has already said that he desires to keep with the Privy Council. The right hon. Member for Llanelly said that one of his legal friends has suggested to him the appointment of a West African judge to the Privy Council. Perhaps he had read an Adjournment debate which I initiated in the House, six months ago, in which I made that proposal.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I give the hon. Member the entire credit for it.

Mr. Page: I am obliged. I have urged it ever since. This link between the courts in West Africa and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is very important. Up to the present, our Commonwealth nations have been drifting away from that. Here we have an example of a new State wishing to retain that link with the Privy Council and, incidentally, saying, as has been said in the debate in the Legislative Assembly in the Gold Coast, "We want to retain that link, but we should like to strengthen it by a West African judge being appointed

periodically to sit on their Lordships' Board of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." I am sure that several hon. Members here know at least two judges from West Africa who would serve the Judicial Committee very well. I believe that such an appointment would be a contribution not only to the benefit of Ghana but to the benefit of the whole Commonwealth, to which we hope to welcome Ghana as a member.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: All hon. Members who have addressed the House today have spoken with a full sense of the importance of the occasion. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was no exception. Here we are assisting at the birth of the first all-African Dominion. wherein we hope there will be no grades of citizens, unlike that sad Dominion far to the South in the great African Continent which is so full of forebodings for relations between the races. In Ghana things ought to go very well, provided we make no mistakes in the initial stages, because hon. Members on both sides of the House and, as far as I am aware, everybody in the Gold Coast itself want independence for Ghana.
The trouble lies in the fact that in the house of independence there are many mansions, and it is quite possible to imagine a form of independence which might mean the very opposite of independence for a large minority of any country. My submission is that it is the duty of the governing Power to see that independence is real before it is granted nominally.
For excellent reasons and with the best intentions, we have placed ourselves in a position whereby independence has to be granted on a certain date. The reasons the date has been fixed are very well understood. I think almost everybody agrees that it is desirable to fix a date. We understand how it came about. The fact is that a date has been fixed. I blame nobody at all for this, because I welcome it. Nevertheless, I say that it is our duty in the days which lie between now and that date to do our utmost to see that the independence which we are granting to the Gold Coast, and which they so richly deserve, is real.
The Secretary of State previously said that, subject to an election which would


take place in July. 1955, this date should be fixed. That election took place and the date has been fixed as 6th March. 1956, with, as we have been told, 57 per cent. of the votes going to the Convention People's Party and 43 per cent. to the Opposition. Even if we assume—which I do for the sake of this argument—that everything in the election was perfect. that there was no gerrymandering, no intimidation, no corruption and no improper practice of any sort which would vitiate the result, this minority of 43 per cent. is surely an extremely sizeable minority to which we should certainly pay the most serious attention. When we remember that the National Liberation Movement had a majority of votes in Ashanti and the North. surely this is reinforced.
Unfortunately—and we need not 20 into the merits of the matter—members of that large minority fear that they will not be properly treated after independence has been granted. If they had consented to the form in which independence is to be given, they would now have nobody to blame but themselves if they did not get a fair deal afterwards; but they have not consented to the form of the independence. They consented, of course, to independence; in fact, all four diverse regions of the territory of the Gold Coast were calling —one might even say screaming—for independence. When independence became imminent, doubts began to be expressed; and it was realised that nobody had said precisely what was meant by independence.
This seems to me to be a serious matter. It is not, in my submission, enough for the governing Power to say. "There has been a majority in favour of independence and therefore we can wash our hands of the whole situation." Let us remember what happened in the Sudetenland. Hitler wanted to annex the Sudetenland. It was perfectly easy for him to argue that he had a majority in a plebiscite—a plebiscite which was taken not only in the Sudetenland but also in the greater Reich. In the two added together there was, of course, a majority in favour of the Sudetenland joining the Reich. Is it not precisely the same in Ireland, where some argue that because a majority of the people of Ireland want to take the North into the South, therefore the North should be taken into the South? Is not the

essence of the matter whether a majority of the people in the part affected, in the North of Ireland, want to go to the South? Is not that the crucial matter?
So it is, in my submission, with the Gold Coast. I feel that very great importance must be attached to the views of so large a minority. In my submission it is our plain duty to see that the minority have their rights, and to do our best to see, as far as we are able to use any persuasion at all upon them, that they realise their duties, too. Dr. Nkrumah is a most remarkable man, as anybody knows who has met him for even as short a time as I. He is a most remarkable man of great charm and great ability. I believe that he realises as much an anybody the need to obtain consent for this independence in the fullest sense of the word "consent"—consent not only to the actual fact of independence but, as far as it is humanly possible to obtain it, consent to the form of that independence. I believe he realises that there has to be an Opposition and that an Opposition is not something to be put out of sight but something to which one must pay attention if one wishes to make democracy work.
I believe that he would welcome a move from this country in the direction of having these matters settled amicably. It is difficult to say precisely what one should do. In my submission, however, it would possibly be welcomed by him if we made even the gesture of sending a Parliamentary delegation to see whether it could not mediate and obtain the consents without which at the best there will be friction and at the worst there will be bloodshed. That is a very small suggestion to make. Doubtless Dr. Nkrumah has extremists in his own party who are difficult to control. He might find it easier to control them if the Secretary of State were prepared to make a suggestion to him on those lines.
I ask that this suggestion and others which have been mentioned already in the debate—other suggestions intended to try to overcome the difficulties which at present the Government of the Gold Coast and the Opposition feel to be separating them—should be seriously considered by the Secretary of State before 6th March so that we may ensure that this independence, which we all wish Ghana to have, will be real and secure.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: As has been said in every quarter of the House, this is certainly a day of the greatest importance to ourselves, Ghana and the whole Commonwealth. Those of us who, for many years, have taken an interest in the affairs, more particularly of West Africa, feel it important beyond words, important far beyond some of the other issues, great as they are, with which the House has been dealing in recent days and in recent weeks.
This is the birth of a State, the first of the really modern self-governing States of Africa and a State which will represent an altogether new departure in the history of that Continent. It is twenty-seven years since first I went ashore on the Gold Coast with the surf boats of that time. I have had the opportunity of visiting it for shorter or longer periods since then. For a period of two years I had the honour of being head of the Commission on Higher Education in West Africa and in this current year I had the honour of leading a Parliamentary delegation which visited, among other Colonies, the Gold Coast, actually at the time when tension was very high because of the impending constitutional changes. All of us in each of those delegations looked forward to this day which we are now enjoying.
We said in the concluding paragraphs of our report on higher education that in ten or twenty years—what is that in the life of a nation?—a new State would arise in Africa, that it would be powerful as well as new and that its voice would be heard in the New World as well as in the Old World. Now that prophecy comes to pass. As has been said by hon. Members on both sides, particularly by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), this is a day upon which to congratulate ourselves, because it is a day of great achievement for the Commonwealth as a whole and, more particularly, for the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Gold Coast, or Ghana, as it is now to be called.
There are, of course, certain factors which will make it difficult for the new State, which we should frankly recognise. One of them is the fact that in West Africa the belts of climate and vegetation run transversely. The coastal

belt, the forest belt, the desert belt run across the Continent for 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 miles, while the political divisions run north and south; partly because that is the way in which the European Powers drew the boundaries, and partly because that corresponds to a real economic link. the link of the coastal area, the ports, the access to the sea, with the great forest rainfall belt and that links, in turn, with the drier regions of the hinterland running up to the desert of Sahara.
Consequently, as has been mentioned by several hon. Members, we get a diversity in the communities in the State which, partly by the action of the House, is now being brought into existence. We should not shut our eyes to that fact. It is not exactly true to say that Ghana is a nation. It is not yet a nation. It has the hope and power of becoming a nation, a group of peoples who are themselves willing and anxious to pull together for their future. The process is not yet complete and a heavy responsibility still lies on the House in the hand-over which is taking place.
The difficulties arise out of the right and proper steps which have been taken. steps we have always desired to take, to make this a self-governing and independent territory in the fullest sense of the word—independent according to the Statute of Westminster, which is as full independence as exists anywhere in the world. They also arise from the fact that we have, rightly, had to fix a date. Without a fixed date, people never will believe that the events will actually happen. They think that it is a case of this year, next year, sometime, never. Unless a date is fixed, nobody is ever brought up against the realities of the case, and the realities of the case are certainly beginning now to emerge.
The different communities which we are here uniting are very different indeed. The coastal belt, throughout the history of Africa, has been separate from the hinterland. This is the problem which my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has encountered in other West African Colonies. It occurs in reverse in Sierra Leone, where the coastal people fear domination by the hinterland. Our constitution-making in Sierra Leone has had to take that into account. The coastal people there feel that the hinterland, which is more heavily populated,


will swamp their way of life, just as the people of the Northern Territory of Ghana fear that the more highly populous and economically more powerful territories of the coast will swamp and steamroller their way of life, to which they still rightly attach a great and traditional importance.
Even in Nigeria, the great constitutional skill of the then Oliver Lyttelton, now Lord Chandos, had to be directed to holding together portions which might otherwise have tended to fall apart—the Moslem territories of Northern Nigeria with the well-watered fertile lands of Eastern and Western Nigeria to the south. It is, therefore, in no way detracting from the achievement which has been already secured, or the hopes which we most passionately hold for the future, to recognise these facts and to say that both sides, what is called the Government and the Opposition, or the coastal territories and the hinterland ought to recognise the facts of life and realise that they will have to come and go a great deal with each other if this new experiment is to succeed.
Dr. Nkrumah has a Parliamentary majority and. as Parliamentarians, we must, naturally, attach the greatest importance to that. He secured it not merely in one, but in two elections. By the rules of Parliament, he is thus entitled to pass almost any legislation he wishes. However, he has also to bring along with him the other communities, powerful communities with traditions of their own which require, so to speak, to be ridden on the snaffle rather than the curb, if they are to be brought in as willing partners to the new synthesis of people which we are forming.
This is not a matter of regimenting and pushing these people together. It is a matter of getting their good will and co-operation, and that is the task to which both this Parliament and the Gold Coast peoples must bend their minds. After all, it is almost within a lifetime, and, certainly, only a short historical time, since the Ashanti were marching to the coast and besieging the coastal towns. Their national motto, "Kill a thousand, and a thousand will come," is the motto of a very stubborn and persistent people. The Northern Territories have only newly been brought into this grouping at all.
An hon. Member opposite mentioned eminent judges who would certainly be an addition to any judicial bench anywhere in the world. I would certainly include Judge Coussey among that number, and there are other judges, too. When I discussed these matters with him, he told me that in the first all-African Committee of Inquiry witnesses from the Northern Territory said all the things which Africans usually say about Europeans, but with redoubled vigour, and about the Africans of the more cultivated territories.
He said, "They told us quite bluntly that they regarded us as exploiters and employers of sweated labour. There were all the usual complaints that sources of labour are wont to launch against the more settled areas which use their labour seasonally and then return it again to the source from which it came."
So, in the midst of our rejoicing—and this is a day of rejoicing—let us not confine ourselves solely to rejoicing because, if we do, then we neglect the duty of this House, which is to foresee dangers and to discuss them quite frankly with those on whom those dangers will impinge, much more heavily than they will upon us in this House.
The Under-Secretary of State, in opening the debate, pointed out that this Bill is fundamentally a Bill to establish an Order in Council. Really, the gist of it will be the Order in Council transferring the powers which this House exercises, and the powers which, as the Under-Secretary of State gave us to understand, are being transferred from the Sovereign to the new Assembly which is being set up. This is an instrument of enormous and irrevocable power, and I venture to make this suggestion, that the Secretary of State might find it possible to allow a little more consideration of this instrument than is normally given in the case of an Order in Council which is brought forward under a Bill.
The Bill itself, if it passes, is highly-technical and it will, as I say, beget an Order in Council. I would have suggested that, had the time been available, some other Parliamentary procedure might well have been adopted for the examination of the Bill in Committee and possibly of the steps which could be taken


as a result of it; but I think that we are held so tightly within the limits of time—the Minister and myself know what it means to find that we are beginning to run right up against the unbending limits of the Parliamentary calendar—that there is no time for further detailed examination under this Bill.
We have the debate today and a day for the Committee stage, but I do not think that it will be possible for far-reaching Amendments to be debated, or, if debated, to be adopted, because the danger of a breach of faith might arise with the Gold Coast Government, which is the last thing that any of us desire. But I think that it might be possible for the Secretary of State, instead of publishing in draft the Order in Council—we know that this is technically impossible, because we cannot have a draft Order in Council— to publish a White Paper giving the gist of the Order in Council which it is hoped to introduce.
I would even go further. I hope that it may be that a formal or informal council of Parliament may examine this, possibly in concert with those who can speak both for the Government and the Opposition in the new territories to which it is to apply. Some review might be made, because one of the difficulties which arise under the Statute of Westminster is the enormous power of revoking which a sovereign Assembly possesses.
The Minister has already spoken of the two-thirds majority, but I think that if, in some way or another, a further entrenchment could be agreed to—I think that it could only be done by agreement —then many of the doubts and fears of these powerful territories, minorities within the whole area, but majorities within their own territories, might be allayed. Points which have been discussed tonight in the House, such as the position of the Judicial Commission, of the position of the Civil Service Commission, and even points as to the possibility of regional devolution, which might well be further explored in the tentative and informal way which is all that can be done now under the limits of time. This might do a very great deal to melt away the difficulties which still exist.
It might well be that the powerful and sympathetic personality of the Secretary

of State himself could come into play. I am sure that the personality of a previous Secretary of State, Oliver Lyttelton, played a great part in holding together the great Nigerian Provinces when they were showing signs of flying apart. I am sure that the personality, sympathy, and enormous industry of the present Secretary of State, also, might well come in in a task like this. Because what we want is not only energy but enthusiasm.
The new State will have the greatest trouble in surmounting its problems, and unless it is not merely acquiescent but enthusiastic about it, I think it will have very great difficulty indeed. The C.P.P. has enthusiasm and vigour. It is our task, and the task of all men of good will, to see that this enthusiasm is also evoked in the other African communities which are to form part of the new nation. Because, here, the whole future of the African race for half a century or a century ahead is at stake. A failure here is not merely a failure in the Gold Coast or in West Africa; it is a failure in Africa and all the hostile critics of Africa and the Africans will be only too ready to rush forward and say, "There you are we told you so." That is a danger that we want to avert, and, therefore, we require to take every possible step that can be taken, by conference, by discussion, and by evoking good will and enthusiasm, to avert that kind of difficulty.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that it was desirable that the new Dominion should be accepted as a full member of the Commonwealth. I am sure that that is true. After all, it was our own poet, Shakespeare, who said these magnificent words:
Mislike me not for my complexion,
The shadow'd livery of the burnish'd sun.
To whom I am a neighbour, and near bred.
"The shadow'd livery of the burnish'd sun"—what a glorious phrase it is. If we are to regard our new companions in the Commonwealth as bearing the shadow'd livery of the burnish'd sun—to whom they are near neighbours—and not as any kind of second-rate or number two citizens, but citizens with a message of their own to bring towards our many-coloured Commonwealth, we shall have done great work not only for ourselves but for the whole world.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I am sure that when the long history of this country comes to be written one of the most important things that it will show to have been developed in this country and given to the world is the English language. The last quotation of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) was an indication of the power and greatness of our language. Perhaps the other great thing which we have been able to give the world is the parliamentary system, which we have developed over a very long time.
At this late hour in the debate hon. Members have to keep their speeches as short as possible and, therefore, if I do not deal with the economic future of the Gold Coast, which was to have been the principal part of my speech, it will only be because I am going to concentrate, not upon the English language, but upon the parliamentary future of Ghana.
We have a great deal to give to the Gold Coast. We cannot just hand over a copy of Erskine May, however well bound, and a mace, however well designed, and expect a country to run a complicated system of Government which has taken us centuries to develop. It is obvious that not every aspect can be taught. But there are some. And the Gold Coast is not ashamed to realise that. For some weeks past the Clerk of the Gold Coast Assembly, Mr. Ayensu, has been working here with the Clerks of this Parliament, so that he may be fortified in his task as Clerk in Accra. He will remain here for some weeks to come.
There is something for us to teach, but we have also something to learn. It is important to recognise that as the years pass and other Parliaments develop upon our model we may well have to learn from them. For instance, the Order Paper in the Gold Coast House of Assembly is a far more sensible document than that which we use as a so-called agenda for our proceedings. It is infinitely simpler, and is not a mass of items which are irrelevant to the day's proceedings.
As time passes, practices and procedures more suitable to the local conditions in Ghana are bound to grow up. These grow not only out of the temperature but out of the temperament of the people who debate. A few years ago the Clerk of this

House wrote, in the journal of the Hansard Society, that a Member of Parliament in Ceylon had pointed to certain differences between their procedure and ours and had said that the
Ceylonese like their speeches Like they liked their curry—hot and in great plenty.
Our liking for cold mutton and watery brussels sprouts is not to everyone's taste.

Mr. James Callaghan: Speak for yourself.

Mr. de Freitas: But there are many people in this country who like them.
If hot curry has influenced the procedures and practices of the Ceylon House I am certain that we cannot expect, in a country where ground nut chop is a great delicacy, that they will not change their procedures to adapt them to that atmosphere. But, at heart, their Parliamentary system will be based upon our system of democracy, and they are bound to look to us—there is no evidence that they will be too proud to do so—for guidance from time to time over the years. It will be the task of organisations like the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Hansard Society to give that guidance on Parliamentary government when they are asked for it.
Our chief duty in this Parliament is to continue to set the right example. We understand the role of vigorous parliamentary opposition, but it is not so well understood in the Gold Coast. I was sorry to see, in my visits to the Gold Coast Assembly, how few Members of the Opposition parties were present. I have read reports of important debates upon constitutional and financial matters when no Opposition Members were present. We must always set this example and show that the chief role of the Opposition is to criticise. It is more important than legislation. When new Parliaments are starting off the idea that if a law is made a problem is solved is overstressed. The principal job of Members of Parliament is to keep the Government of the day on their toes with criticism.
Further, we must show that the majority party respects the minority. I do not know how the problem of regional differences in Ghana will be solved, but I am sure that it will be. This is a case where we may be able to help. We have


solved the difficult problem of Scotland. We have been able to maintain Great Britain as a unitary State without a federal structure, or even the device of Northern Ireland. Yet there is considerable administrative devolution in the affairs of Scotland. Some development of that sort may solve the regional problem in Ghana.
Incidentally, I am sure that hon. Members have nothing to teach the Gold Coast politicians in the field of charm, good humour and the general conduct of political discussion.
As to the future which is worrying so many hon. Members, we must remember that the Government of Ghana will know that the eyes of the world are upon them, and that there are many people—most of us regret that such people exist—who believe that the white man alone is endowed by nature with the capacity to rule. Those people will be watching every step which is made by the Government or Parliament in Ghana to prove them right and to bring discredit upon African rule. On the other hand, the Government and Parliament of Ghana know that there are millions of white people throughout the world who believe that all the African needs is to be given the opportunity to show that he can rule. These people, too, will be watching for signs that they are right in their judgment.
I am convinced that a country which, in the political sphere, has already thrown up such outstanding men as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, is bound to have a strong and vigorous Parliamentary future. I am confident that the Parliamentary system will flourish in Ghana, that the rights of minorities will be respected, and that the gloomy prophets will be disappointed.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) made one very wise remark, which we would do well to remind ourselves of often, namely, that to make a law does not solve a problem. This evening we are making a law which, while it is an important step forward, will not solve all the problems of Ghana. All hon. Members who have spoken have indicated that fact with varying degrees of emphasis.
I want to make only two or three short points. The first is a word to our friends in Ghana. One of the great problems with which they, like us all, are confronted at the present time is a shortage of capital. I suppose that, together with technically trained staff, the world is shorter of capital than anything else. All of us may think of tremendous schemes which require vast quantities of capital—in other words, of other people's savings. But the savings just do not exist in proportion to the calls upon them.
I hope that the Government of Ghana, and those responsible for the Ghanese economy, will remember this shortage of capital in the world; and that, in acquiring what capital is available for their country, they will find that they are more likely to get it happily, and on better terms, by following the ordinary commercial practices, built up over the years and well understood right through the civilised world—whether in Europe, North America or in Asia—than by trying in some way to play off the free world against the Communists in the manner of Nasser and suchlike people.
The other point I wish to develop is the fact of the very sad political divisions in Ghana. Goodness knows, those of us, like myself, who have only been there for a few days, should be modest in what we say. But I consider that the whole difficulties were set out extraordinarily well in the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason); and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who has such great experience of these West African problems, felt down below the obvious constitutional problems which are now the subject of such violent discussions.
There are two groups of people, the coastal people and the Ashanti, and during the time I was there it seemed to me that the current constitutional struggle merely reflected the historical conscience of these two groups. The coastal people never forget that the Ashanti are the inland people who, before the Europeans, and particularly ourselves, intervened, were constantly increasing their holding and building up the Ashanti frontiers nearer to the coast. The Ashanti, in turn, remember that they were a great military tribe with a long history of conquests. With that historical background, it is obvious that it will be difficult to


overcome these problems. Yet both peoples have an advantage over most other parts of Africa. They both have considerable cultural unity; they speak the same type of language and both are people of the Akan.
I feel that if my right hon. Friend could find time, even with his enormous range of duties, to go to the Gold Coast himself, perhaps he alone—I do not believe that a Committee front this house could do it —with his authority, could work out the delaying clauses in the Constitution to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) referred. He might find a solution which would meet the views of the Ashanti, and persuade the Government how necessary it is—not only in the long-run, but in the immediate short-run—to have a Constitution which gives a feeling of security to the inland people, to the Ashanti and those associated with them. I am sure that Premier Nkrumah and the C.P.P. wish to set up a suitable State as an example to the whole of Africa and to the world.
Having said that to our friends in Ghana, I would say that we here have a duty. We have welcomed this Bill with varying degrees of enthusiasm. As time goes on, difficulties will undoubtedly rise in Ghana, and I hope, when that happens, that we shall not sit around criticising ceaselessly, and saying, "We told you so". I hope that we shall not "nark" —if I may use that common or garden phrase—but will remember that things will be done in Ghana which are not in keeping with our traditions. The traditions of the Ghanese are different from ours. Assuming that we see nothing which is outrageous, such as an attack on personal liberty—that we should always condemn—I hope that we shall manage to restrain ourselves when we find things being done which are more in keeping with the traditions of Ghana than those of Great Britain.
I should like to join with other hon. Members in saying that the Bill is yet another answer to the ceaseless and unfair charge against this country, that we are interested only in colonialism. We have plenty of examples from the past to prove that false, and we shall have some more in the future. This process for helping the Constitution of countries such as Ghana and of bringing them

along the road of development may not be the ideal one. There may be better ways. But the one we have chosen conforms with the long British tradition which dates back to the Minute of Macaulay on the future of India, which he wrote over a hundred years ago when he was Permanent Under-Secretary at the India Office. We are bound to follow that tradition, because it is ours.
We should all be proud to think that in this new country, which will be a member of the Commonwealth, we shall have seen, in the course of its history and ours, a relationship moving from that of master and slave to that of free man, and finally, in the happy phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove, companions in the Commonwealth.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I have been listening to speeches for four hours, and I have come to the conclusion that I am cursed with a good memory. I remember when Mr. Kwame Nkrumah was imprisoned, five years ago, and was released on winning the Election in the Gold Coast. I remember sending him a telegram which was signed by a number of people who were friends of mine and hon. Members of this House. Some of them are still hon. Members. Others, like Sir Richard Arland and Mr. Tom Driberg, have fallen by the wayside. We said to Mr. Nkrumah that as he had won the Election, we trusted that he would lead his country along the road of democracy and freedom to self-government.
The attacks that were levied on us for this simple act of faith still burn in my memory. In the Wolverhampton Express and Star I was charged with an attempt to sabotage the defences of this country, and I was forced to bring a libel action to put the matter right. I remember that, subsequently, when Mr. Nkrumah first came to this country—when he was not quite so popular—I invited him to dine at the Palace of Westminster. Again, I was subjected to the most vicious attacks. I also remember the articles which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the subject of the Gold Coast. I remember the speeches and writings of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans).
I am glad that all these things are memories and I pray that they will


remain way back in the past. I mention them because I am a friend of the Gold Coast. I never had the good fortune to go there on a Parliamentary mission—I never shall have that good fortune. I just happen to have served there in rather less comfortable circumstances. I have memories of service in Tamule, Kumasi and Takoradi, and those memories made me wish the Gold Coast people well; and I wish them well now. It has given me an interest in the doings of the Army and the doings of the Colonial Office which leave me with no great admiration for either the Colonial Office or the present Secretary of State.
If I had to award any marks for great work in bringing the Gold Coast from the point of rioting, with Kwame Nkrumah in prison, to the position in which he is mentioned in this debate almost in terms of veneration, I should give them to one man—Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, who has done great service for this country, after the attacks by the Conservative Party on the conception which Mr. Nkrumah sought to follow. Sir Charles Arden-Clarke has done a wonderful job and deserves well of us all. The right hon. Gentleman will understand what I mean when I say that I wish Sir Charles were Secretary of State for the Colonies.
I am not an admirer of the colonial picture which faces us tonight. Indeed. I am full of apprehension about what will happen in the weeks and months which lie ahead. Five years ago I welcomed the prospect of self-government for Ghana. Now I believe that if the truth were told by the Secretary of State, by Mr. Nkrumah and throughout the Gold Coast, if it were politically possible, the advent of self-government would be halted.
We are rapidly moving into a position which might result in violence and bloodshed. I hope that that will not happen, I hope that wiser counsels will prevail, I hope that minority opinion will be respected by Dr. Nkrumah and equally I hope that the minority will respect the rights of the majority; but I should have been failing in my duty if I had not remained here for several hours to say what I want to say.
Whether there will be bloodshed or not, the effective Government in the Gold

Coast will not depend upon resolutions in this House; it will depend upon the police force and such armed forces as are there. Whether they are effective or not I do not know, but I am aware of their Constitution.
Here, again, I have the curse of my memory, for my mind goes back to the first defence debate we had in 1946. If hon. Members have a taste for sardonic humour, let them read the speeches made then by the present Prime Minister and the present Leader of the House. They painted grandiose pictures of a future Colonial Army, of the vast Colonial Force which would be raised and which would come to Britain's aid.
How well I remember all through those years from 1946 to 1951, particularly when we had a majority in the House of only about six, how the present Minister of Defence and others, in debate after debate, denounced what they described as the incompetence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) and the slowness. obtuseness and worse, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). Vast numbers of troops were to be raised, the defence Bill was to be cut, and only the wicked incompetence of a Socialist Government, they said, was standing between Britain and the realisation of her imperial destiny.
Again, this memory of mine takes me back to the first debate on the Army Estimates after the new Conservative Government had come straight from the polls. The Secretary of State for War stood at the Box and said, by way of an afterthought, "I must say something about colonial defence. It costs too much and it is not 'on'."
The story is not yet finished. In 1953, there was produced at Lagos a Colonial Paper, No. 304, the Report of the West African Forces Conference from 20th to 24th April, 1953. I congratulate right hon. Gentlemen opposite on producing that Paper. I have congratulated them many times before, and I have done what I can, with my limited influence, to try to influence hon. Members on this side of the House to understand what a great contribution to Imperial and Commonwealth stability it would make if the ideas in that Colonial Paper were put into operation. But nothing has happened —not a single thing.
The question of the Africanisation of West African and East African Forces depends upon the ability to recruit and retain the right material and to turn out sufficient officers and warrant officers. A proposal of the first importance is put forward in this Paper—that a Colonial and Commonwealth Sandhurst should be established. It was realised that it would be impossible for Sandhurst to train and turn out enough officers for the West African and East African Forces and thus such a proposal was essential.
What has happened about that proposal, after three years? Nothing has been done. All that has happened is the retrograde step of introducing the effendi class in the East African Forces. We have made a cut between the warrant officer and the white officers serving in the King's African Rifles. One proposal only —and it has cost nothing either of thought or of money—has been implemented; that has been the setting up of the West African Army Advisory Council.
Again, my memory and my interest serve me well. I watched for the first meeting of this Council. On 4th November last year the first meeting was held. I will not trouble hon. Members by reading extracts from the report, although I should have done so had I been fortunate enough to be called earlier. On 15th November last year I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, asking him whether he would
make a statement on the future of the West Africa Command.
He replied,
Not yet, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 196.]
This was an astonishing reply because a very full report had appeared in the Press, both in this country and in West Africa, of the conclusions reached at the West African Council.
Being of a patient nature, I waited to see what would happen. It is true that I had a private and confidential letter from the then Secretary of State for War. I was sorry to receive it, because it confirmed me in what I already knew but prevented me then and now from repeating it. It is a lesson learned; I do not rush to receive any more confidential letters of that character.
I waited until 7th February, and then I asked the Secretary of State for War

whether he will now make a statement on the future of West Africa Command.
Four months had passed and the meeting had taken place which was to work out what would happen to the Army in view of the development of constitutional changes such as that which we are now discussing. Again, the reply which I received was,
Not yet, sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th Feb. 1956; Vol. 548, c. 1481.]
I had to wait until the debate on the Army Estimates on 15th March. In that debate I went over the whole position again, and I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for War. Apparently the proposal for a Commonwealth Sandhurst had been dropped. It was clear that there were to be three independent commands. But what worried me then, and what worried me from the time of the first meeting of the Advisory Council and the inability of the Secretary of State for War to give an answer about the troops for which he was responsible, was this: what would happen when the constitutional safeguard of the responsibility of the Governor in the Gold Coast to the Secretary of State was cut? What would happen if British troops were to remain in the Gold Coast?
I gave an example of what would happen if Dr. Nkrumah became Field Marshal Nkrumah and entered the field at the head of the West African forces. Were British officers and N.C.O.s to be expected to obey orders in those circumstances? I got absolutely no change at all. We had to wait until 29th June, when a statement was made setting out the future of the military commands in West Africa.
We had, of course, known before that the West Africa Command was to be wound up, but what I did not know then, and what we have never found out from November, 1955, to the present day, is what is to be the exact position of the units in West Africa. Let me repeat that the grandiose idea of a vast West African Force, something like the 82nd West African Division which did so well in the war, has gone. I can now tell the House what forces we have in West Africa. There is one British unit, a Royal Signals unit, of two British officers and 31 other ranks. When the Government spokesman replies to the debate I should


like to know whether that Signals unit it to remain in Ghana after 6th March, and what its relationship will be, first to the Governor, and, secondly, to the Gold Coast Government.
In addition to that Royal Signals unit, there are three infantry battalions of the old West African Frontier Force, now the Gold Coast Regiment, a field battery, Royal Artillery, and supporting units, a total of 184 British officers and 222 British other ranks. On subsequent occasions I questioned the Secretary of State for War to try to find out from him whether, in fact, among those officers, warrant officers, N.C.O.s and, presumably, some other ranks, there were any National Service men I should have thought that the House had a duty to find out whether there will be any National Service men serving on the Gold Coast.
The next thing that I should like to know is whether those officers, warrant officers and N.C.O.s have been seconded. Are they volunteers, or have they been ordered there? I would remind the Secretary of State that, when I was a young soldier, when we wanted to serve in the Colonies, we volunteered. We were taken off British rates of pay, brought on to a contract, and our responsibility was to the Colonial Office. But there was this big difference. Before the war, there was an Inspector-General of West African Forces, who saw to it that the conditions under which we were serving were acceptable to the War Office.
So far as I understand, there is no such safeguard now. What is to happen is that one senior officer is to be seconded —and here, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I refer to a letter which he sent to me last September. I was enabled to see a Mr. Campbell, a senior civil servant at the Colonial Office, and, subsequently the Colonial Secretary wrote to tell me that so far as the Government of the Gold Coast was concerned.
… the Governor-General would act on the advice of his Ministers. It is not, however, possible to say yet what arrangements will commend themselves to the Gold Coast Government after independence.
As you no doubt know, the actual command of the Gold Coast military forces is in the hands of a British Army officer on secondment, and there is every expectation that he or a similar officer will remain for a considerable period after the Gold Coast

achieves independence. During the period between the assumption by the Gold Coast of responsibility for their own forces (which they took over on the 1st July this year) and the achievement of self-government, the Governor, acting in his discretion as part of his responsibility for defence, is ultimately in control of the Gold Coast forces. Those forces are, of course, now paid for and administered by the Gold Coast Government, and War Office control has come to an end.
When the Under-Secretary was introducing the Bill I was astonished that he did not say anything about the position of these forces from 1st July to 6th March next, and then from 6th March onwards. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will tell not only me but the British troops now serving there and the British troops which may be called upon to serve there in the future, what the actual constitutional safeguards are to be, so that no doubt at all will remain that British troops are not to be used haphazard in what are, after all, essential duties in aid of the civil power, at a time when Her Majesty's Government have surrendered, and rightly surrendered, political control to the Ghana Government.
While, I join in wishing this experiment well, I have certain doubts, which I hope will not become realities. If, of course, the Secretary of State rules out the possibility of those forces having any function other than the purely decorative, he can dismiss what I say. If, on the other hand, there is any possibility at all of internal security forces ever being used for the purpose for which they are provided, he has a duty to the country and to the Army to say exactly where we stand on this issue.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, memories come back to me; memories of service in that country, and of friends who are still there. I wish this experiment well, and I agree with everything that has been said about it. It is an experiment not only for Ghana and for Britain, but for Africa and the whole world. If it fails, a great deal more than Ghana will suffer. If it succeeds, it may be a step towards making amends for the appalling happenings of the last four or five weeks.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Philip Bell: My excuse for intervening is not that I have been libelled and have received great damages for being said to have said


something about Ashanti, nor that I have a long memory and a long list of Questions which I have put down and have not had answered. It is rather that I have a colleague who comes from Ashanti, whose uncle is a chief of the Ashanti, and my knowledge is derived from friendly conversations with him.
The position of the so-called minorities is that there are these four regions, each proud, each looking forward to an independence which, although they believe they are fit for it, has not been offered to each. The answer, of course, is very clear: that perhaps none of those territories is itself viable and able to live alone. It has been necessary, therefore, to group them and to give this new Dominion a chance of a successful life. My friend does not greatly fear that there is likely to be violence because independence has not been granted to one particular province. He says that whatever may be the deep feelings of the people, there is a substantial chance of Ashanti and the Northern Territories giving this constitution a fair run.
It is quite clear, however, that this is something very new in the way of granting Dominion status. It is different from the Dominion status granted to the States of Australia, which were free to combine. We know what savagery and bitterness the question of the right to secede by individual States led to in the United States, and how it is not really quite sufficient to put States together, thinking that there is not some danger of their breaking away and of there being violence.
The moral to be drawn by us is that, having, I think properly, offered independence, not individually but to a group, we are in a special sense beholden to the individual parts to secure such guarantees for their minority rights as are possible. It is very easy to talk about guarantees and about writing things into constitutions, but when we face realism we know that those guarantees and constitutions can be broken by powerful and unscrupulous minorities. They are really nothing more than expressions of hope and faith. It was, I think, Walter Bagehot who said that the secret of successful banking was not in the banking system but in the bankers, and the secret of a successful constitution is not really in the constitution or in the guarantees but in the people themselves.
I listened with somewhat cynical humour to our own back-slapping about the British constitution—how fair, equitable and well advanced we are, and I thought to myself that it was not really so long ago when we were having political trials, when we were persecuting people and when we had bribery and corruption. This new Dominion will not have 400 years in which to reach the state that we have reached. We expect it to grow up almost overnight. It is a very difficult business. I do not know how one could describe what an enormous burden it is. They have got to get their independence and avoid any of the big mistakes which we made.
Of course, they have the advantage of history. They have seen how they will delay freedom if they are too greedy about it. I am not sure that anything can be done in these circumstances except to give them trust. I should like to think that there was an opportunity for the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs to have one more round-table conference before March to allay some of the fears of the minorities and to bring them a little closer into touch with the majorities from whom they have been rather distant in the past.
I am not going to make the usual peroration about the young nation and the good wishes with which we favour it—that has been done so much better by abler orators—but I am proud on this occasion to associate myself with the good wishes which have been expressed.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: We have had a most interesting debate, and many valuable suggestions have been made in the hope of finding some way through our present difficulties. I sincerely hope the Secretary of State for the Colonies will give us an assurance that these suggestions will be carefully studied between now and the declaration of independence.
It has been pointed out that this is an historic occasion in the sense that the subject before us is one of great significance and importance in the development of the Commonwealth, for this is really the first African State which is reaching responsible self-government and independence. I think all of us welcome the assurance given by the Under-Secretary that, with the declaration of independence


on 6th March, there will be a corresponding declaration that Ghana comes into the Commonwealth as a full member.
We have heard a great deal today about the differences in the Gold Coast, and undoubtedly they are very real, but I think it can be said that at the moment the parties there have abandoned the idea of federation, are prepared to discuss the establishment of a unitary State, and all parties are agreed on the importance of independence and that there should be no postponement of the date. Therefore, I think all of us extend our good wishes to Ghana in the sincere hope that, whatever difficulties there are may, in the next few months, be diminished and removed altogether.
I personally am glad to be able to take some part in these discussions because of my own personal interest over a long period in the development of political democracy in the Gold Coast. I had something to do with the initiation of the Burns Constitution, with the establishment of the Watson Commission, with the setting up of the Coussey Committee and also with the appointment of Sir Charles Arden-Clarke. Therefore, because of that close association over the years with the Gold Coast, I am naturally anxious that this great experiment should succeed.
The advance has been very rapid, and those of us who have cared about political advancement have also been concerned that social and economic developments should keep pace with the political concessions that are made, because obviously it is of little use to make political concessions unless those concessions can be sustained by economic development and by social improvement of the people.
In the Gold Coast, as previous speakers have pointed out, we are confronted with a territory whose people are at different stages of social and economic development, and therefore when dealing with a backward people in the Northern territories, with people who have a great desire for tradition in Ashanti, with the people in the south who have been brought into close contact with another civilisation over a number of centuries, it is not easy to weld them into a system in which modern political democracy can flourish.
I think, however, that we had no alternative but to pursue the course we took. I well remember some of the stern criticism which was made of some of us who were anxious that political development should proceed to that as smoothly as possible. It was felt that the pace of progress was much too fast. Yet there was no alternative at all to the concessions which were demanded.
Either we repressed and engaged in violence, which was not particularly true to the phlegm of the British people; or we made advances to try to create political institutions of a representative and responsible character and try to build up a Ministerial system and establish the foundations of a political democracy, all the time remembering the traditional structures of the Gold Coast, and hoping that somehow in that advance in the building of political democracy, we could reconcile the traditional structures with it. So we went ahead, trying to create a genuine knowledge and understanding of the ideas of political democracy in the territory.
As is well known, our policy as a nation has not been merely to establish self-government but for that self-government to come to fruition in terms of political democracy. But if independence is to be established in the Gold Coast, it depends upon a number of fundamental principles. First of all, it cannot flourish unless there is efficient administration. I would emphasise what has already been said, that it is for us to offer and for the Gold Coast not to reject the administrative assistance, the technical aid, which has been so freely offered by the British Government.
It would be fatal—and some of us saw it only a few months ago in the Gold Coast—if a policy were pursued by the new Government of the Gold Coast which was calculated to drive out from this important work those who had the skill and the knowledge in our Colonial service, and indeed, it should be recognised in the Gold Coast that as yet there is not the experience and the trained staff to secure that standard of efficient administration which the Gold Coast so badly needs.
In the second place, if there is to be a sound political democracy, it must have the resources which make for economic viability. Very remarkable


progress has been made in the Gold Coast over the last few years, but when all is said and done, the economy is not on a very firm basis. These big extensions of public works, of utilities of all kinds, the building of hospitals, universities and so forth, involve the Territory in recurrent charges. It is, therefore, vital that there should be revenue adequate to meet existing and future charges, and that the economy should be re-adjusted so that it is a mixed economy and not one resting chiefly on revenues secured from cocoa.
It is because I have in mind the economic problems of the Gold Coast that I very much regret that the Secretary of State has not so far put forward some constructive proposals for meeting them There will, for instance, be great liabilities in respect of the Northern Territories. How are the Northern Territories to be developed? We must remember that these are Protectorates for which we carry a responsibility, a responsibility entered into as far back as 1893, for the promotion of the welfare and happiness of the people. There are commitments already in regard to education, public health, and communications, so that the burden is now likely to become a very heavy one for the Gold Coast Government.
I have always felt some anxiety about the transference of Protectorates to Governments which are inexperienced in the administration of backward peoples. We have just seen what has happened in the South Sudan, and we know of other instances when we have not had sufficient regard to the Protectorate status of the people we were transferring to the control of alien governments. The same considerations will apply to the case of the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast. In addition, the Gold Coast Government will have heavy liabilities in regard to the development of Togoland.
There is room for some proposals to meet the heavy liabilities which will fall on the Gold Coast Government when independence comes. After all, as has been said, the Gold Coast has made in the past, and still does make, an enormous contribution to the sterling health of our country. The peoples of the Gold Coast have in the past few years, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) pointed out, helped to steer us through a

period of very great financial difficulty by the contribution which they have been able to make in dollars and by their willing sacrifice in diminishing their consumption of dollar commodities.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly pointed out, before long there will be other territories emerging to independence. This means that there will have to be some serious, constructive thinking on the part of the Government about the problems which will present themselves. With the withdrawal of the support of the Imperial power, there is likely to be great economic difficulty and, possibly, economic confusion. It will then become all the more important that we should not witness the disintegration of all the work that has been put into these territories in the past. We want them to survive and to go forward, not fall into chaos.
The international Agencies have something to offer in this respect. There are organisations already which make some contribution towards assisting backward areas, but I should like to see the British Government initiating some organisation to co-ordinate the resources which can be made available to territories which are emerging, as the Gold Coast is, to independence and which will face very great practical difficulties in the days ahead.
I feel some anxiety about the problems which will arise in running a system of political democracy in the Gold Coast. We all appreciate that the pace of political advance has been fast. Moreover, democracy is an extraordinarily complex system to introduce to a people just passing out of tribal organisation. They have had no time to learn, and little time to experiment. Let us remember that there have been many grave casualties of democracy during the last forty or fifty years, because of the difficulty of working it. It is being introduced here in a background hitherto untried, in a tropical area, where the circumstances are completely different.
We must, therefore, be prepared for disappointments, for lapses from the high standards which we have set as a result of our own long and continuous progress. We shall see many of the values which we regard as essential to the working of democracy forgotten in the days to come. largely because of inexperience and the lack of opportunity to experiment and


learn. One hopes that in the Gold Coast there will be not merely a faithful copy of the Westminster Constitution. After all, our institutions and procedures have been established as a result of trial and error and experiment over a long period, whereas in the Gold Coast something has to be evolved which has relation to the traditional needs of the people, which must be developed against their background and in the light of the economic circumstances in which it will have to operate.
We express with great sincerity our desire that, in the working of that political system, there shall be tolerance, that minority rights shall be respected, that civil rights shall be observed, and that everything possible will be done to eliminate corruption and nepotism from the political scene. One can only hope that this experiment will result in the establishment of a high set of standards which will be observed by not only the Government but all those who are privileged to carry forward this great political enterprise in the new united nation.
I turn now to consider the present difficulties confronting the Gold Coast in the conflict and grave misunderstandings which have arisen because the respective regions do not yet feel satisfied that the constitution is one which gives them complete confidence. There is the danger that, directly the props of the Imperial system are removed, there will be a tendency towards disintegration. We had hoped, of course, that the conference between the Opposition and the Government since the General Election would produce results which would heal some of the wounds and get a closer cooperation in the political life of the territory. Unfortunately, however, to judge from the reports coming to hand from Ghana, there is not at the moment a disposition to work the constitution as it will be conceded to the Gold Coast when independence is declared.
So far as I understand the situation, these difficulties arise from a lack of confidence in the Government by the Opposition. Perhaps it is a lack of confidence due in part to the fears that the tendency on the part of the central Government will be dictatorial, and to the feeling on the part of more liberally-

minded people that there will be a struggle for the preservation of some of the traditional features in the Gold Coast which are alien to democratic working.
Be that as it may, we have to face the fact that Ashanti and the Northern Territories are profoundly disturbed in regard to the proposed constitution and that it cannot be said that there is at the moment general acceptance by people in certain regions of the Gold Coast of the proposals which will be enacted before 6th March.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend has already suggested how the matter of the constitution might be handled. One of the two main problems is the devolution of responsibility into the regions. The other is the writing of safeguards, of checks and balances, into the constitution, arising from the feeling that the constitution can be immediately upset by the central Government with very little pretext because of the extremely simple manner in which the constitution can be amended.
As I read Dr. Nkrumah's speech, I gather that there are quite a number of Amendments which the Opposition would desire if the United Kingdom Government would agree. In his recent speech, Dr. Nkrumah quoted the Secretary of State's letter to the Governor. The British Government, I understand, say that certain Amendments which are wanted can be secured after indepedence, but not before and that it is the intention of the Government to limit the drafting of the constitution to the existing constituion with a few minor Amendments but that such things as entrenchment clauses and the Declaration of Human Rights must be left until after independence has been proclaimed.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether in these matters of agreement it is not possible to insert in the Constitution now being prepared these important principles and items to which the Opposition attaches so much importance. I go further and urge that before the Order in Council is issued, a White Paper, including a précis of the constitution, could be issued to Members of this House so that we may be informed of what the Order in Council is likely to contain. I appreciate that it would probably be an infringement of the Royal


Prerogative to submit the Order in Council to this House, but because of the great importance of the matter and our desire that the constitution should have a good start, I consider it important that this House should be informed of what the Order in Council is likely to contain.
Dr. Nkrumah has agreed, for instance, that there should be included, even before independence, the Declaration of Human Rights, and there are other things which he has mentioned in his speech. Why not put these things in the new constitution now? They would have a tremendously reassuring effect with the Opposition.
I and all other Members of the House welcome this great step forward which we are taking today. We as a nation are withdrawing from the tutelage which we have given the Colonies. We are withdrawing from what some people describe by the ugly word "colonialism". As a leading colonial Power, we are adjusting ourselves to relationships that fit the facts of the modern world. Ghana will join Liberia and Abyssinia, and I hope that the integrity, character and equipment of the Gold Coast will give leadership to the African Continent in the days ahead.
As has already been said, the territory owes very much to those who in the past have devoted their service to it. I pay tribute to leaders such as Guggisberg, Burns, Korsah, Coussey, Nkrumah and Arden-Clarke and to a succession of Secretaries of State who have encouraged the political, social and economic advancement of the territory. I pay great tribute also to the Colonial Service for the great contribution it has made.
We all hope that the present difficulties will be overcome and that the Gold Coast democracy will be activated by the highest principles of which I have spoken and will become a State renowned for its tolerance and sense of social justice, demonstrating to the Blimps and the cynics of the world that a black people is no less able than any other people to contribute to the civilisation of the world and add to the dignity of mankind.

7.57 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am, I think, the eighty-fourth Secretary of State for

the Colonies, and it is a very great pleasure to have had speeches in this debate from the eighty-first and the eighty-second holders of that high office.

Mr. Wigg: And the eighty-fifth.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If so, the age of miracles is indeed not past. I was also very glad to hear the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) to the memory of Oliver Stanley, whose contribution also to the evolution of the Gold Coast was a very considerable one.
I join with the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in congratulating all those who by long and generous service have played a part in bringing about this consummation. I know that the thanks of the whole House and of millions of people throughout the world will be with Sir Charles Arden-Clarke for his imaginative leadership. I have also been particularly glad to hear the tributes that have been paid to Her Majesty's Overseas Colonial Service. I know from first-hand experience, as do so many others, in this House and outside, of the unselfish devotion to duty that they have shown.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. N. Pannell) mentioned the possibility of the application of the special list procedure for the Gold Coast. Consideration could certainly be given to the application to them of the special list, or, perhaps, what is more likely in their particular circumstances, of the other leg of the policy, the central pool.
I, too, should like to give my hest wishes, and the best wishes of my colleagues, to the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast, of Ghana, Dr. Nkrumah, and his colleagues, and to the leaders of the Opposition in Ghana and to the chiefs and people of the Territory, and I share the prayer of all hon. Members that we shall have cause to be proud of this historic step and of the independent country within the Commonwealth which is thereby emerging. They will, as has been repeatedly pointed out, need our help in many ways.
The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made a very impressive but short speech, and in the course of it he dwelt on certain thoughts he had formed from the journey he made there some little time ago. He asked me about the present


situation of the withdrawal of the British officers whom one has now to call the expatriate officers, though that is not the sort of word which really suits them and the romantic and devoted work which they have achieved.
The situation is roughly as follows. When the compensation terms came into operation on 31st July, 1955, there were about 1,400 expatriate civil servants. Of those, 142 elected to retire at once, and have now gone. About another 150 were then expected to go before independence, that is, before next March, making some 300 in all out of the 1,400. In fact, the average for the last three months of nine expatriate officers leaving monthly is about the expectation. The monthly average is expected to increase between now and March. I cannot give the House any firm estimate of what will happen thereafter. It will very largely depend on the action of the responsible leaders in the Gold Coast itself.
Help will be needed not only in the form of trusted and devoted service but in other ways as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, in his interesting speech, dwelt on the need to have, as far as we can in this difficult world, economic stabilization, more stable prices for prime commodities like cocoa. Certainly a glance at the figures shows the quite astonishing importance of cocoa in the economy of the Gold Coast. I think I am right in saying that the proportion of the revenue of the Gold Coast that is drawn from the export duty on cocoa reached at one time the high figure of over 60 per cent. In the present year, 1955 to 1956, £20 million is raised from the export duty on cocoa, but that is only 38 per cent. of the revenue. The estimate for next year is that it will have fallen to 29 per cent.—from 60 per cent. some years ago to 29 per cent. next year.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that these are the things that really matter: and they matter very much indeed. Throughout this debate there has, I think, been a most refreshing realisation in all parts of the House of the real importance of economic advance if political and social progress is to have any basic reality.
The United Kingdom, of course, consumes only a part of the Gold Coast production of cocoa. We cannot by our-

selves, however much we may wish we could, alter the cocoa prices, and we can hardly buy above the world price. I do not think anybody would suggest that we should. There must be international control. A Cocoa Study Group has recently been set up. and has held its first meeting, to see how far, if at all, production is exceeding demand. The meeting was in Brussels. The next meeting, I am glad to see, is to be in the Western Region of Nigeria. I put this in the forefront of my observations, because I want to underline the belief common to us all in the real importance of economic stability as far as it can be achieved.
So much of this debate has turned, as it was bound to do, on the unhappy differences of opinion that exist in the Gold Coast, so shortly to be the new State of Ghana. and it would. I think, as everyone has recognised, be both very foolish and unworthy if we pretended that those differences do not exist: but we all also recognise that very genuine and vigorous efforts have been made to try to resolve those differences. I have been acutely disturbed by them ever since I had the honour of being appointed to my office over two years ago.
I was very glad when in December last year it was possible for Sir Frederick Bourne to go out to the Gold Coast as independent constitutional adviser. I was sorry at the time—I shall not go into all the reasons, for I would not be thought unjust to the Opposition—but I was very sorry that at the time they decided not to meet him officially, although I know that a number of them met him personally and privately. As the House knows, Sir Frederick, with his great experience, came down firmly against a federal constitution.
I do not propose tonight to talk much about the federal solution, because no hon. Member in the House has advocated it. I hope that that fact will be noted by our friends in Ghana. We are all anxious for a happy solution and a wise one and a statesmanlike one, but no voice at all has been raised in this House in favour of a federal solution because we know the facts of life, the size of the country, the geography of the country, the consequent development of the transport of the country, and the difficulties of manning a series of Parliaments.


Problems of that kind would make that a very poor solution.
After Sir Frederick's visit and his report we had the Achimota Conference to discuss it. This was held in February of this year. Once more, I am sorry to say, it was boycotted. Minor modifications were introduced into Sir Frederick's report. Then the Gold Coast Government's proposals, which were a blend of Sir Frederick Bourne's Report and of the Achimota recommendations were published in April this year. Shortly after that I had the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Botsio to London, and thereafter I made a statement in the House, and gave a pledge on 11th May, saying what Her Majesty's Government would do if an election were held and resulted in a majority, and if thereafter a motion were introduced in the Assembly. A motion was introduced on 3rd August, and was passed. Then another attempt was made. The Governor saw the Northern Territories Council and asked for a list of safeguards which would help them. Then in September the National Liberation Movement representatives and the Northern People's Party and the Togo-land Congress representatives came over and saw me, and saw also the Secretary of State for War who was then Minister of State in the Colonial Office.
Then I came to this conclusion, which, I am glad to know, has received the support of everybody, I think, in this House, not least that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), that the best way really to bring the parties together and to bring things to a head was to announce a firm date for independence, which I did on 18th September, and the date is 6th March next. Then Dr. Nkrumah, who had previously declined to meet the Opposition leaders together, changed that view and had talks with the Opposition and with the Territorial Councils. Then revised constitutional proposals were made, and these we are now giving the very closest examination.
I recognise, as does everybody in the House, that the Opposition leaders have their many anxieties. They have suggested, for example, a Council of State, to be formed of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Attorney-General, and the heads of the four traditional Regions. The purpose of this

Council of State would be to advise the Governor-General on the exercise of his prerogative powers, and on the public service and judicial appointments, and to act as a final court of appeal in local constitutional matters.
The Gold Coast Government take the view—and I think there is some substance in this—that it is not very wise to make some of the Governor-General's functions exercisable on the advice of a body responsible neither to the Government nor to the National Assembly. They hold that a body containing political representatives is an unsuitable body to be an appeal court.
The Opposition has also suggested a Second Chamber. The view that the Gold Coast Government have taken has been that the function of reviewing legislation could be carried out better through their own proposals for Regional Assemblies and Regional Houses of Chiefs, which would be given the opportunity to examine legislation before it is introduced into the National Assembly. So the view has been that they reject the Second Chamber unless the majority of the Territorial Councils will say that they want it as a substitute for Regional Houses of Chiefs. I hope that discussion on this and other matters can still continue.
Another point raised by the Opposition was the question of the powers of the Regional Assemblies and whether they should be Northern Ireland powers or London County Council powers. I do not want to keep the House long, and I will not therefore develop that argument very much, except to say that from the recent White Paper of the Gold Coast Government it looks as if their view is not quite the same as that of Sir Frederick Bourne regarding the form of regional power in the field of finance. It may well be that, given goodwill on both sides, further progress in that field may be brought about.
The Opposition bas also asked for regional control of the police. This is the only one of the nine constitutional safeguards desired by the Northern Territories, which the Gold Coast Government have not been willing to grant. The Opposition fears misuse of the police and the Government argue that a unitary force is likely to be more efficient and to attract a better type of recruit. I


mention these facts to show that there have been vigorous and statesmanlike attempts to bridge the gulf. It is not yet bridged, but I will do all I can to see that it is bridged before irrevocable decisions are taken.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the question whether or not the Regional Councils should be enshrined in the Order in Council and whether they would follow the proposals of the Gold Coast Government on page 6 of their White Paper. The final conclusion as to what will be in the Order in Council must be for Her Majesty's Government to decide, though it would be unwise, and very unfair, not to pay the highest possible regard to the views of the Gold Coast Government, so recently elected by a substantial majority. But it might be desirable to define the scope and continuance of these regional bodies a little more precisely.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, have raised the question of security and of the police force and armed forces in the Gold Coast. It is quite right that they should expect some answer from me. On one or two aspects of military establishments I may not he able to give all the details now, but I will see the hon. Member for Dudley is provided with the information at the earliest possible date.
The forces available for internal security are the Gold Coast police of about 5,500 and military forces of about the same size, including the three infantry battalions. Under the present constitution, both police and military forces are under the ultimate control of the Governor. As the hon. Member for Dudley said in his very sprightly speech, the War Office relinquished control of the military forces on 1st July this year, and this will remain the situation until independence. I do not mean that the War Office will then take control but that the ultimate control of the Governor will remain until independence.
As to the territorial composition of these forces, I would ask the House to bear with me whilst I give a few statistics, because they are very interesting and in some ways very enlightening. If we look at the armed forces or the police and take

a glimpse at the total proportion which each part of the Gold Coast produces, we may get rather an illusion as to the effective combatant contribution of the various parts. In the Army, the Colony produces 45 per cent. of all the other ranks, the Northern Territories produce 45 per cent., and Ashanti 5 per cent., but if we break that up between combatants and noncombatants in other ranks. the Colony produces 34 per cent., Ashanti 4 per cent. and the Northern Territories 62 per cent. It must be noted, however, that a large but unknown proportion of the 62 per cent. may be from French West Africa. It is impossible, even in order to please the hon. Member for Dudley, to be more precise than that, but these are very interesting conclusions and it is worth having them on record. As to the police, the Colony produces 45 per cent., the Northern Territories 25 per cent., Ashanti 10 per cent., and the balance probably come from French territory.
In answer to one or two of the more detailed questions which the hon. Member for Dudley asked, there is a signal unit of two British officers and 31 other ranks in the Gold Coast. This is the only British Army unit in the Gold Coast. It is quite separate from the Gold Coast military forces, and it is not at the disposal of the Gold Coast Government for internal security duties.
As to the military forces other than that signal unit, the facts are that there are 184 British officers in the Army in the Gold Coast, and 220 non-commissioned officers on secondment, a total of about 90 per cent. of the commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers being drawn from overseas. As to the locally-recruited officers in the Army, 26 come from the Colony, 1 comes from Ashanti, and I from the Northern Territory. I do not doubt that these proportions will rise as the chances of education, for example, in the Northern Territories, improve.
I feel sure that the forces will continue their existing tradition of impartial and loyal service to the State, and I am equally sure that Ministers will use their authority wisely and not put an unreasonable strain on the loyalty of any part of these forces. The General Officer Commanding is a British seconded major-general, and the British seconded officers will be subject, as they are now, to the United Kingdom Army Act. The ultimate


directives for the use of the forces would come from the Gold Coast Government after independence, and it would not be constitutionally possible for the forces to be responsible after independence to the Governor-General as they are now to the Governor.
A number of hon. Members have asked what would happen if there should be real difficulties and if bloodshed arose. If I deal with that, I hope that it will not be thought that I imagine that such an unhappy development is at all likely. I join in the declaration made so eloquently by both right hon. Members opposite that the future of the whole democratic experiment in Africa is at the moment in the hands of the people of the Gold Coast.
Under the terms by which their secondment is arranged. Her Majesty's Government reserve the right to withdraw British personnel from service in the Gold Coast if conditions should arise where it would be considered that such action should be necessary. I am glad to say that there has been a useful and happy development dealing with the political control of the armed forces. The Gold Coast Ministers have recently advised that an Armed Forces Council should be set up before independence on the pattern of the British Army Council. Authority would be vested in a board at the top, of which the Minister would be chairman and the General Officer Commanding would be a member. The Council would not be concerned with operational matters but with promotion and discipline. It is hoped that it would succeed, at any rate to a large extent, in keeping those important matters away from political influence.
I have dealt with a number of the points which have been raised. If the House will bear with me a little longer, I will try to deal with one or two more.

Mr. Wigg: As a final question after what has been a very satisfactory statement, are the officers and N.C.O.s, which the right hon. Gentleman says are seconded, serving on contracts for which they have volunteered or for which they were ordered?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They have all been seconded. As to whether they are, strictly speaking, volunteers, the hon. Gentleman served in the Army and I served in the Navy. and we probably both

have our own views as to what the best answer to that question may be.
I should now like to make brief reference to one or two very important matters to which I and Her Majesty's Government attach the very greatest importance —the independence of the Civil Service and the judiciary and the position of the Attorney-General. The right hon. Member for Llanelly asked about the judges. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe asked about the independence of the Civil Service and the judiciary.
There are already a Public Service Commission and a Judicial Service Commission, which are independent bodies. advising the Government. The Gold Coast Government proposed last April that these should continue, but in their November White Paper they put the final control of appointments in the hands of the Governor-General acting, on the advice of his Ministers. It seems to me and to my colleagues in the United Kingdom Government that, except for the Chief Justice and a few of the most senior Civil Service posts, the final authority after independence should lie with the respective Commissions, the Public Service Commission and the Judicial Service Commission. I very much hope that this view will be shared on reflection by the Government of the Gold Coast.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly asked me specifically about the present judges. The April White Paper of the Gold Coast Government says that it is proposed that, on independence, judges shall be given the option—it refers to existing judges—of continuing in office. on the terms applicable to judges appointed since 4th May, 1954—that is the present terms—or of retiring on the expiration of their present tour of duty or one year after the date of independence, whichever shall be earlier. Those who elect to retire will be entitled to compensation, but those who choose to continue on the terms which have operated since 4th May, 1954, will remain on those terms. I hope that that deals with the point and sets at rest any doubt in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
As to the Attorney-General, the Gold Coast Government have agreed that his should remain an official appointment at least as long as the present British Attorney-General holds the office, instead


of becoming a political appointment. It certainly is my view that this is very wise indeed in a country which is embarking on this great experiment without being sure—as we are broadly, though our debates may sometimes suggest something else—of mutual confidence between the political parties. I am very glad that the Government of the Gold Coast have taken that view.
I was asked a number of questions about the amendment of the constitution by the hon. Member for Barnsley, my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and one or two other hon. Friends of mine. As the House knows, there has been a change in regard to the Gold Coast Government's proposals for the amendment of the constitution. They originally suggested that constitutional changes should take place with the consent of two-thirds of the members present and voting. The new proposal is that a two-thirds majority of all members is required.
I have listened with the very greatest interest to the speeches which have been made on this subject from both sides of the House. I recognise that the Opposition parties and people are not likely to regard the two-thirds majority criterion as being of exceptional value when the Government in the Gold Coast at the moment, at the birth of the new constitution, already have a two-thirds majority of their own. I recognise the strong feelings that have been expressed that there should be some other additional safeguards. One hon. Member said that a two-thirds majority should be required in two successive Parliaments. Other hon. Members have privately suggested to me that the regional bodies ought to be brought in and should have a function in regard to revision of the constitution.
We must, I think, beware of suggesting anything which would make the constitution too rigid. On the other hand, I understand the anxieties of hon. Members. I am sure that the Government of the Gold Coast, which has shown such statesmanship in so many fields, will ponder on this debate and read with interest all the speeches which have been made and profit from them.
Finally, on this subject, the right hon. Member for Llanelly referred to funda

mental rights and quoted my statement to the Gold Coast Government that I felt that that and other things would not appropriately be included in the Order in Council. As hon. Members know, these fundamental rights—freedom from arrest, freedom of association, and things of that kind—are already implicit in the common law which extends throughout the Gold Coast, and their enunciation in the constitution would not add materially to that.
Nonetheless, I have listened with sympathy and understanding to the arguments which have been used. I recognise that it may be that this ought to be looked at again. I will give an undertaking that I will certainly look at it again. I would emphasise that it would be unreasonable and impracticable not to take very full account also of the views of the Gold Coast Government on all these matters, though on this particular matter it is true that both the Gold Coast Government and the Opposition at one time were in agreement that this should be done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) also asked me about Parliamentary control in the concluding stages of the hand-over of authority to the Gold Coast. I listened with very great interest to what he had to say. It is true that the Order in Council, which would be under the terms of the British Settlements Act, must be laid on the Table of this House immediately after it has been made, but there is no provision at all for an affirmative or negative procedure. I recognise that that is a considerable hardship to hon. Members and may prevent our united wisdom being brought to bear on what I recognise to be a matter of fundamental importance, the Order in Council which will shortly be prepared.
Therefore, I should be ready to discuss with my colleagues—this involves Ministers other than myself, and not least the Leader of the House—the possibility of putting the Order in Council's constitutional proposals into a White Paper to be laid before the House. Then, after hon. Members have had time to read it carefully, we could debate it and I would listen to any comments which may be made. I would then discuss matters with the Gold Coast Government to ascertain to what extent we could meet


the comments which were made. I need hardly say that throughout this procedure I should always be at the service of right hon. and hon. Members on either side of the House to listen to any comment or suggestion that they might care to make in order to ensure that this shall be, as far as it possibly can be, an agreed Measure.
Several other points were raised. One was a very big one, and that is the role of the Colonial Development Corporation in the Gold Coast and elsewhere. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I dealt with this at some length on the Committee stage of the Bill, because there is a great deal that I should like to say and I should hate to do it in a hurried way, which speaking at this hour might well involve.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I cordially agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that carries with it the undertaking that we shall have reasonable and adequate time for the Committee stage.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have already taken some rather firm decisions about the future Parliamentary timetable, I had better say that I will pass that to the proper quarters and say that my colleagues will not lose sight of it.
There are two other points want to raise. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to the possibility of a Gold Coast judge being appointed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee Amendment Act, 1895, enables provision to be extended by Order in Council to any judge of any other superior court in Her Majesty's Dominions, and I will see that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is

acquainted with the strength of the feeling on this matter on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirk-dale asked about the security of British and other capital in the Gold Coast in the event of the Gold Coast Government in its own discretion deciding—as it would be entitled to do—to nationalise industries in the Gold Coast. The White Paper which the Gold Coast Government produced makes it clear in paragraph 27 that the existing powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to entertain appeals from the Gold Coast would be retained. Other provisions of the White Paper make it clear that although nationalisation as such could not be contested, those affected would have a constitutional right to adequate compensation and access to the courts to determine their rights, including the amount of compensation. I think that that meets the point that my hon. Friend raised.
I should not like the debate to end on a note of suspicion and uncertainty. I do not believe that these things are likely, that people will find that capital in the Gold Coast is in peril, or that British officers in the Army or police force will be confronted with a choice of loyalties. I am myself a believer in this great experiment. It is an experiment, but it will be helped if we enter into it. without shutting our eyes, but in high hopes that this great and romantic conception will justify the faith which so many people have put into bringing it about.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Committee Tomorrow.

EGG MARKETING SCHEME

8.31 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move,
That the Draft British Egg Marketing Scheme, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
Agriculture is an industry with many facets. Recently, the cereal harvest, cattle and pigs have been in our thoughts. This evening, I must ask the House to concentrate its attention on eggs. This Marketing Scheme has been promoted by the three farmers' unions in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Acts.
Hon. Members may recall that the Government's White Paper on the Decontrol of Food and the Marketing of Agricultural Produce, in 1953. said that the present interim arrangements would be continued until more permanent marketing arrangements could be introduced. The interim arrangements were designed to leave scope for a producers' marketing board. During our talks with the unions in 1954. the Government agreed to a form in which the guaranteed arrangements could be implemented, if a marketing board with full trading powers was established. It was then for the farmers' unions to decide whether. in fact, they wished to promote a marketing scheme.
In fact, they did so and the unions' draft Scheme was formally submitted in October, 1955. Since then, it has passed through the various procedures laid down in the Agricultural Marketing Acts. There was a large number of objections and representations and the Scheme was subjected to a lengthy—rather unusually lengthy—public inquiry. I should like to pay tribute to the patience and thoroughness with which the Commissioner, Mr. G. G. Baker, O.B.E., Q.C., conducted that inquiry and to the fairness of his conclusions.
After considering the objections and the Report of the Commissioner, which was published last June as a White Paper, the agricultural Ministers decided that the Scheme should be allowed to proceed, subject to some quite important modifications. The promoters, I am glad to say,

accepted the changes we considered necessary and we modified the Scheme accordingly. Since the Scheme relates to the United Kingdom, it was then laid before the Northern Ireland Parliament. Having been recently approved by that Parliament, it is now submitted for the approval of this House.
Before turning to the Scheme itself, I should like to say a few words about the background against which the Scheme should be seen. Egg production in this country has developed rapidly during recent years, and we are now producing nearly 95 per cent. of the eggs we eat compared with about 70 per cent. before the war. Poultry keepers all over the country are now producing over 10,000 million eggs a year. It sounds a great many but I believe that that figure is correct.
The bulk of this colossal number has to be marketed and, of course, marketed regularly and efficiently. Some are sold direct to consumers, but by far the greater number has to be collected and taken wherever the consumers need them. That means a steady flow of eggs from the country to the town, in the process of which packing stations have an important part to play.
For years brisk argument has centred round the best way of doing this, and strong and sometimes conflicting views have been passionately held. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will agree with me there. I saw just now my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) in his seat, and I know that the House remembers the part he played before the war in the development of agricultural marketing. The right hon. Member for Don Valley has also a wide knowledge of this subject.
There is no doubt that everyone, whatever conflicting views have been held, has been aiming at the same goal, which is to make sure that consumers, no matter where they live, shall be able to get eggs as fresh as it is humanly possible to provide them and at reasonable prices. The first thing to be done, I think it will be agreed, is to make sure that the eggs are sound and fresh when they are sent off, and the second thing, when handling large quantities of eggs, is to ensure that they shall be graded and packed so that wholesalers and retailers can order for


their customers the size and quantity of eggs they want.
It may be argued that that is the kind of thing that traders are well-equipped to do by themselves without any other assistance. There is, however, one troublesome factor in this business, which many producers and traders with long experience of the egg market feel that it would be difficult to meet without some kind of central organisation. That factor is the fluctuating nature of both the supply of eggs and the demand for them.
Hens, like Ministers, do not lay the same number of eggs each week; but, once hens have come into lay, one cannot turn the supply off and on again or regulate it week by week to suit the needs of the market. Housewives wishes also vary, and not always, unfortunately, in line with the changes in supply. Those two fluctuating factors, supply and demand, have to be reconciled and in this case reconciled quickly enough to enable eggs to be sold fresh. As a result of these factors, the egg market is a very sensitive one.
Changes in supply and demand do not have to be very large before biggish changes occur in the price, which may have a disrupting effect and leave room for harmful speculation, with all that that entails. Today, the industry is justly proud of the reputation that British eggs have come to earn among the public. In the marketing of eggs our main concern should be to try so to arrange things as to minimise the risks of eggs being delayed in transit from producer to consumer and losing quality on the way.
It is always difficult to make arrangements to suit everyone in all possible circumstances, but in a fluctuating, sensitive market like that of eggs I am satisfied that there is scope for some central organisation which can foresee the changes in supply and demand and help, as far as possible, to even out the flow. That is not to say that I want everybody organised into one inflexible system; and when they look at the Scheme I hope that hon. Members will feel that the modifications which we have made provide the degree of flexibility at which we ought to aim.
I now want to turn to the Scheme as it has been modified. The object is to ensure workable arrangements which will

be as widely acceptable as possible. Like the Commissioner, we felt that the Scheme as originally submitted was a little too restrictive, especially as regards sales to consumers and to retail shops. We therefore made a number of modifications, which we believe have gone a long way towards meeting the great weight of the main objections.
The first feature of the Scheme that I should mention is that it provides for a board with full trading powers. The board will have power to require that by far the great majority of eggs produced for the wholesale market will be sold by producers only to the board. In practice, it will employ packing stations as its agents to collect eggs from producers and to grade, test and stamp them. In general, eggs will continue to be distributed very much as they are today, but the board will be able to ensure the maintenance of quality standards, which are quite essential for the operation of a satisfactory wholesale market.
Every day the board will fix its selling price for eggs, and the distributive trades will be able to purchase those eggs from it at the prices settled. Any unsold eggs will be retained by the board and will be either moved to other markets or stored, for sale later. Some of the eggs which are surplus to immediate requirements may even be broken out by the board and sold, for instance, to baking establishments but, as with milk, the return from the manufacturing market is likely to be a good deal lower than for eggs sold in shell. There will be an incentive to the board to sell as many eggs as it possibly can in the fresh market. It will have no control over wholesale or retail distribution, so the normal competitive market forces will continue to be the dominating factor in selling eggs.
As I have said, the demand for eggs is a highly sensitive one, and consumers have shown quite clearly during the past year or two that they will not pay prices which they regard as too high. I am glad to say that at present the prices of eggs are extremely reasonable, and I do not think that the consumers have any view to the contrary. Under the conditions which I have described the views of consumers will be reflected back rapidly, and the board will have to pay scrupulous


attention to them in its trading activities —and I am sure that it will readily do so.
I referred earlier to working out the guarantee arrangements which would operate satisfactorily under those conditions, and our intention is that the guarantee arrangements shall be operated by the board. These arrangements will not be part of the Scheme which we are introducing this evening. But if, as I hope, the Scheme goes through Parliament, and is finally adopted by the producers, the Government propose that the guarantee under the Agriculture Act shall be a guarantee to the board, and not to individual producers, in the same way as it is at present in the case of milk and wool.
The general form of the guarantee, however, will be different from what it is at present. Under this Scheme it will be a flat-rate subsidy for all eggs of first quality passing through the packing stations. The rate of the fiat-rate subsidy will be fixed at each Annual Price Review. The prices paid to the producers will be a matter for the board to decide, subject to the provisions of the financial agreement with the Government to which I have referred. But under that financial agreement there will also be a profit and loss sharing arrangement between the Government and the board which will provide an incentive to maximum efficiency on the part of the board.
This profit and loss arrangement will work on these lines: at each Review an estimate will be made of the average market price likely to be realised for the sale of first quality eggs during the following year. If, in the event, the actual average price realised varies within 2d. per dozen above or below the estimated figure, the board will bear the loss or retain the profit. If the realised figure is more than 2d. below the estimate, the Exchequer will make up nine-tenths of the excess deficiency. On the other hand, if the realised figure is over 2d. above the estimate, the Exchequer will receive back half of the excess. The guarantee arrangements for duck eggs will be on similar lines, though not necessarily precisely the same, as for hen eggs.
This is the framework for the operation of the guarantee by the board which was agreed in principle by the Government

with the farmers' representatives, if such a Scheme were to be approved. When the detailed arrangements have been worked out they will be included in the financial agreement to which I have referred. I would like to say, in parenthesis, that it is the intention of the Government that producers with 50 birds or fewer will continue to get the guarantee, if they send their eggs through the packing stations.
There are one or two other important features of the Scheme to which I ought to refer. As recommended by the Commissioner, we modified the Scheme so that, by and large, it would apply only to eggs sold on a commercial scale. The qualification for exemption from registration was raised from 25 birds or fewer over six months old to 50 birds or fewer. This leaves outside the Scheme most of the backyard and domestic poultry keepers who are more concerned with supplying their own and neighbours' households with eggs.
The sales of eggs for export and for hatching will also be outside the board's marketing control. The board will also be able to exempt other types of producers, for instance, producers who live in really remote and outlying districts whose main interest will be purely in supplying the market needs of their own locality.
The provisions relating to direct sales and to retail shops constituted what might be called the storm centre of the inquiry. as I think the House will recollect. It has been very much in our minds throughout that we must see that distribution should be as quick and as free from obstacles and bottlenecks as we can possibly make it. The Commissioner devoted a lot of attention to these provisions and we accepted most of the changes he recommended, but we have gone rather further than those changes in one or two respects.
All producers who want to sell eggs direct to consumers will be able to get so-called "A" licences which allow producers to sell direct to consumers, and in that case they will not have to grade, test or stamp the eggs. I hope that the "A" licences will not be confused with the transport A licences. We ought to have called them X licences, or perhaps something else. For these eggs, that is, direct sales to consumers, there will be


the most speedy and the most direct transaction of all. These sales are bound to depend on the good will and the reputation that has been built up by a producer, and it seems to us desirable that that direct link between producer and consumer should be preserved.
Producers who want to sell direct to retail shops—not to the consumer, but to retail shops—will be able to get a so-called "B" licence. Here we have gone somewhat further than the Commissioner did. The Commissioner recommended simply that the board should have power to exempt such sales if it wished to do so, subject to such conditions as it cared 10 impose, but we felt that a rather more positive provision than that was desirable. If there Is a demand for eggs sold in this way then we think that such sales should be allowed to take place.
We therefore modified the Scheme to entitle a producer, as of right, to a licence to sell his eggs direct to the retail shops, provided he adheres to the conditions attached. No condition is to be attached in such cases that the producer must rest or grade those eggs before sale, but he may under the modified Scheme be required to mark them so as to identify them as his eggs—that is to say, the eggs of a particular producer.
Such an identity mark, we think, is likely to be necessary for proper control, because there will be no direct link between the producer and the consumer, as there would be if he sold his eggs direct to the consumer. We also think that this identification mark will help consumers by showing that these eggs have come direct from the farm and by making it possible to identify any producers whose eggs are regarded by the consumer as not up to standard.
I know that some producers would also like to be free to sell their eggs either to other producers or direct to the wholesalers. But I believe that to safeguard the reputation and the market of British eggs, eggs for the wholesale market ought to be properly graded and tested to a uniform standard and also marked to show the size and quality. Alternatively, they must be sold in such a way as I have described so that the identity of producers can be readily established. That consideration, I think, rules out the possibility of producers being permitted to

sell ungraded and untested eggs to other producers or to wholesale traders.
The administrative provisions and the miscellaneous powers of the board follow, in general, the usual pattern of marketing schemes, and I do not think I need go into diem in detail, but if there are any questions my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to answer them. We have accepted the Commissioner's recommendations and also made a number of changes to ensure that the voice of minorities should be heard. For example, in the Scheme as originally submitted, it was provided that the minimum number of registered producers who could nominate a candidate for election to the board should be fixed at 50, but we have reduced this to 10. We think that this makes it rather easier for scattered groups of producers who might wish to put alternative candidates before their fellow producers for election.
As well as the detailed criticisms which arose at the inquiry, there are also objections to the Scheme in principle. Some people feel that it is wrong that producers should be given statutory powers such as are proposed for the board or they fear that the board might use such powers to hold other sections of the community to ransom. Such objectors tend to overlook two rather important factors. First, Parliament has given agricultural producers the right to promote this particular form of cooperative enterprise, designed to enable producers to help themselves to become more efficient producers and to help them towards more efficient marketing for their produce. Secondly, the Acts specifically recognise the possibility of conflicts between sectional interests over the operation of a scheme and provide a number of checks and balances to safeguard the interests which are likely to be affected.
There are safeguards for consumers, for trade interests, for producers and for the public interest generally. Some of these safeguards are in the Agricultural Marketing Acts themselves, such as the provision of powers for the Minister to intervene in the public interest and the procedure for dealing with complaints from consumers and others about the operation of schemes. There are other safeguards provided not in the Acts but in the Scheme. For instance, there is


provision for joint consultation with the trade over policy issues and provision for an arbitration procedure for aggrieved producers.
In conclusion, I would say this. This Scheme represents, I believe, another important step forward in our task of creating permanent marketing arrangements for agricultural products. I also believe that it represents another landmark in agricultural co-operation. The promotion of the Scheme shows very clearly that egg producers are alert and keen to help themselves to raise their standards of efficiency still further.
There is no doubt that the industry, as a whole, is making very steady and satisfactory progress in increasing productivity and improving efficiency. The Government have always been in favour of producer marketing boards in every appropriate case. Whenever we find a case where this type of organisation will, in our opinion, benefit producers and consumers, we are very glad to recommend to Parliament a scheme which has been promoted by producers. I believe that that is also, broadly, the view of the right hon. Member for Don Valley.
We have to look at each case on its merits. Recently, for pigs, we decided that the balance of advantage lay against a statutory marketing scheme, but I believe that this Egg Marketing Scheme is one that we can recommend as being in the public interest. Many hon. Members will remember the egg marketing situation between the wars. Here, we have a Scheme which the promoters have worked out with very great care. and, I believe, with a great sense of responsibility. The Government have considered it in all its aspects, and are satisfied that it should lead to further progress in the efficiency both of production and of marketing. We are satisfied, also, that it maintains a fair balance between all the interests concerned, and that the safeguards in the Scheme and in the Acts together are adequate.
The Scheme, of course, is not unalterable, and if, from experience in working it, it is found that improvements are required, amendments can be promoted and will, of course, be considered. If, as I hope, it is approved by Parliament, the industry itself will have the

final say at the initial poll. I am confident that if and when the Scheme comes into operation the board will be able to do a great deal for this important section of agriculture, and for those, consumers and others, who depend upon it for their supplies of fresh eggs. Therefore, I have every confidence in commending it for the approval of the House.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: I should, perhaps, make it clear at once that I have been a supporter of collective marketing schemes for quite a long time, and I make no apology for it. As far back as the mid-twenties I was a member of my party's agricultural advisory committee. If we knew little about the practical day-to-day operations on the farm, we all realised the hopelessness of 150,000 to 300,000 unorganised sellers facing a comparatively few organised buyers. We knew just what their chances were. As the Minister has said, quite a tiny surplus could completely knock out the bottom of any market.
In such circumstances, all the bargaining advantage goes to the middleman. The producers get a raw deal, and the consumer gets no benefit at all. Beef has recently provided a classic example of that. Another consequence of such a situation is that, when the price of any commodity slumps badly it is fairly obvious that production of that commodity will decrease in the following year. There was then no such thing, of course, as stability or efficiency. It was a case of hit or miss. This was all in favour of foreign exporters who were concentrating on the United Kingdom market. Co-operative marketing schemes were being built up abroad. Eggs—to mention one commodity in particular—were carefully tested, graded and packed, leaving the producer to devote the whole of his time to efficiency and quality production. No wonder, therefore, that they captured between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of our market.
Realising all this, my party came down on the side of collective marketing schemes, and it might interest the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who was not in the House at that time, and many other hon. Members who were not here at that time,


that we printed the heads of our agricultural policy as early as January, 1929, and I need quote only one line—
The development of collective marketing schemes.
That was in January, 1929. In 1931 the second minority Labour Government passed the first Agricultural Marketing Act, and in the face of very keen opposition from every hon. Member on the benches opposite. The present Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health and the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) were all in the Division Lobby against marketing schemes and against that marketing Bill.
I suppose if the present Minister of Agriculture, a very loyal member of his party, had been here at that time he too would have opposed the Bill. It is true that since then we have taught them very many lessons, and we welcome their steady progress. Indeed, we watch their educational development with almost paternal pride.
In 1949 we amended the 1931 Act in the light of past experience, and we provided additional safeguards for consumers and traders against the abuse of any powers conceded to them—I ought to say powers which must be given if any scheme is going to have any chance of success.
I would commend to hon. Members Sections 1, 2 and 4 of the 1949 Act, and particularly to those who talk so glibly about monopoly, price fixing, the denial of housewives' choice and so forth Especially would I call their attention to Section 4 which, as the Minister says, gives him or any other Minister power to give a direction to the board with which the board must comply. In other word, if the board even intends to do a thing which the Minister of Agriculture thinks would be inimical to the interests of consumers or traders, the Minister of Agriculture has the power to impose a stop.
It will cause no surprise if I say that I am going to support this Scheme, believing as I do that it will be in the best interests of the producer and consumer, and indeed of the nation, by creating and maintaining a sense of stability, encouraging greater efficiency and providing a quality product that the housewife requires.
There are, of course, others who take an opposite point of view—some at least just as sincere, and some much less sincere. I happen to have read the Commissioner's Report from end to end, including all the arguments and objections which were submitted. These objections came from all sorts of individuals, leagues, associations and federations, interested and disinterested, but when the total number of objectors is compared with the total number of egg producers they are indeed exceedingly small. A figure of 1,200 objectors has been mentioned, but the number of egg producers ranges between 700,000 and 1 million, so that they are very small indeed by comparison.

Mr. Coldrick: My right hon. Friend says that, of course. people who objected had some special interest. Is he really suggesting that the promoters of this Scheme had no self-interest?

Mr. Williams: Most decidedly, they were definitely interested in it. The objectors who do not produce any eggs are not entitled to the same interest as the man who produces them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In any case, what I said was that there were objectors, some of whom were interested and some of whom were disinterested. Surely, hon. Members would accept that. There is no condemnation there of any trade, or body, league, association, or what-you-will.
Some of the objectors are very interesting, if utterly unrepresentative. There is the British Housewives' League, the Hampstead Housewives' Association, the Birmingham Housewives' League, the Cheap Food League, the Society for Individual Freedom, the Land-Value Taxation League, the Proportional Representation Society, and, of course, a large number of representative associations and federations.
The Housewives' League was very active when we were in office, since when there has been a five-years' hibernation. Now it has emerged as a wholehearted opponent of this marketing Scheme, which it describes as a monopoly and conspiracy.
The Cheap Food League—all three of them—appeared as an objector, and two of them gave evidence at the inquiry. I


notice that both these gentlemen came from London, one from S.W.9 and one from S.W.11—obviously not food producers. They stand for cheap food produced by others.
The Land-Value Taxation League and the Proportional Representation Society seemed to me to be far removed from agricultural marketing schemes, but their presence at the inquiry may have had a propaganda effect for their particular organisations.
What is most important about these objectors is the comment of the Commissioner in page 86, paragraph 158 (3), of his Report, where he says:
The Poultry Association of Great Britain is the only objector which has proposed any alternative to the Scheme other than what the promoters describe as the return to laissez-faire."
That means, of course, that all the objectors except one opposed any marketing Scheme and prefer to go back to what the Commissioner described as the "bad old days". In page 22, paragraph 45 (1), the Commissioner said:
The safest authority is that on which so many objectors rely, namely the Lucas Report, which speaks of the disparity in the bargaining power of the many and scattered units of primary production as against the relatively few well organised distributors and processers with their concentrations of buying power. Further, the Lucas Committee rejected a return to the policy of laissez-faire."
After reviewing all the evidence, the Commissioner summarised the promoters' case in this way, in page 16 of his Report:
At the present day the home-produced egg is marketed in the way in which the great mass of consumers want it. It commands a premium, and the imported egg is beaten. A return to pre-war conditions would be very detrimental…to producers, who would be exposed to inadequate market information, infrequent or no collection, gambling on a rising market by traders, low prices to producers
when there is an abundance, and
diminishing consumer preference for home eggs".
I agree with him there. They then make it clear that a voluntary scheme would fail
because there will always be somebody who will pay the producer more on a rising market thus depriving the packing station of supplies
periodically; while
On a falling market the packing station will he given the lot.

Whatever the objectors may say, it seems obvious that a return to a "free-for-all" would mean complete chaos, particularly new when producers are supplying anything between 90 and 95 per cent. of the home market and output is still increasing. That, of course, is what some traders want. I do not put it higher than that.
The Commissioner was in no doubt about those dangers, as he made clear in paragraph 40, in which he said:
The conclusion at which I have arrived is that I cannot disregard the promoters' evidence that there is danger of the packing station system, if I may use a comprehensive term, breaking down in a completely free market. If it does break down there could be rapid disintegration and great danger to the producer by a flood of imports on the home market.
He concludes by saying
It is an unjustified risk.
If that is the right conclusion for the Commissioner to reach, is this the fairest scheme that can be devised to achieve the object in mind? Are the safeguards for the consumer and for the trader adequate?
A good deal has been said and written about compulsion, disciplinary powers, monopoly, lack of competition and denial of housewives' choice. On the first point, in the Commissioner's words,
Short of the complete prohibition of sales other than through packing stations, the Scheme is probably as good a piece of machinery as the ingenuity of man can devise to force the maximum number of eggs into the packing station.
I have already mentioned the safeguards in the 1949 Act, and I emphasise that they are very real. The Minister has already outlined the amendments to the original Scheme. It seems clear enough to me, at all events, that consumers will have ample choice of British eggs; retailers will be able to sell eggs tested. graded and stamped by a packing station and will also be able to sell untested, ungraded eggs direct from the producer; consumers will be able to buy direct from farms or producer-retailers if they prefer, and they will also be able to buy from the market stalls and off delivery vans, while again, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, producers with 50 hens or less will be exempt and free to sell eggs just as they wish. There will be no lack of competition, therefore, for housewives' choice.

Mr. Arthur Holt: If these are the benefits that the consumer will derive, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what consumers at the inquiry indicated their support of the Scheme?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member asks me a question that he himself cannot answer. He can only tell me that the highest computation that was made was that there were 1,200 objectors. There are 50 million consumers. I cannot argue that all except the 1,200 are supporters of the Scheme any more than the hon. Member can argue that they are all against it. We have to accept the figures as they are, and the hon. Member will answer his own question to his own satisfaction.
Rather than there being no competition, denial of housewives' choice or a monopoly, I feel that both the Commissioner and the right hon. Gentleman may have opened the gate slightly too wide, so much so that they may conceivably have endangered the success of the Scheme. In any case, it is clear to me that there is no such thing as a monopoly. As to compulsion and disciplinary powers, every hon. Member must know that without such powers no scheme would have any chance of success. Not even the Milk Scheme could have succeeded without appropriate powers. Therefore, I am firmly convinced that the vast majority both of producers and consumers, if they understood the true position, would be ready and willing to support the scheme.
As the Commissioner said in paragraph 30,
It is a surprising, but on reflection an accurate, statement…that 'as a result of the controls and the orderliness that was imparted to the egg maketing of this country during the war (there has been and remains) an enormous benefit to producers and consumers.'
Those were the words of the Commissioner himself. With those controls and that orderliness removed the alternative is either a marketing scheme on these lines or a free for all and, perhaps, pre-war chaos.
The reintroduction of the Poultry Industry Bill of 1938 and 1939, which some objectors seem to prefer, is not before us tonight. Therefore, they are not alternatives to a marketing scheme. The only two alternatives facing the House

at the moment are, therefore, either a marketing scheme or nothing. Speaking for many of my hon. Friends I have no hesitation at all in coming down on the side of the marketing scheme.

9.21 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I should like to congratulate the Minister on his explanation of the Scheme, and I have no quarrel with anything the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has said. but I think we ought to get these marketing schemes into the right perspective. The party of the right hon Member for Don Valley, in 1931, promoted what is technically called the principal Act. This side of the House, in 1933, promoted two Acts concerning agricultural marketing. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in 1949, produced the 1949 Act. Therefore, both sides of the House are committed to the principle of agricultural marketing schemes, and I think that we ought to be quite clear that this is settled bi-partisan policy for agriculture in all suitable cases.
How do these schemes work out? Personally, I have never been entirely happy about the set-up under the 1931 Act. Under that Act the Minister has to be satisfied that when a scheme is put forward by a body of producers they substantially represent the producers of the country. That is provided for in the First Schedule to the Scheme. I think in this case that condition is amply satisfied. The National Farmers' Unions of England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have produced the Scheme. Then, under the 1931 Act, if objection is made a competent and impartial person has to inquire into it. I think that that condition has been fulfilled, because Mr. Baker did, I think, fulfil the duties of inquirer into this Scheme with great skill and competence.
Then the Minister can modify the Scheme, and he has done so in the way he has explained, and submit it to Parliament, but under the 1931 Act he can do so on being
satisfied that the scheme will conduce to the more efficient production and marketing of the…product.
It has nothing to do with the public interest or the consumers. I think that my right hon. Friend, in his speech tonight, has shown that he has fully considered that aspect of the matter.
Then comes the snag. Parliament discusses it and approves it, as we have done on previous occasions and, no doubt, will tonight. The snag comes in that, Parliament having committed itself to approval of the Scheme, the producers can still throw it out. I have never liked that aspect of the thing. My right hon. Friend has committed himself wholeheartedly tonight to the Scheme, and so has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley, yet the producers outside can throw it out.
To have the Scheme adopted by the registered producers no fewer than two-thirds of the registered producers voting must vote for it, and they must be the registered producers who can produce not less than two-thirds of the eggs. That is a very big hurdle. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has "chanced his arm" a little tonight in coming out so full-bloodedly for the Scheme when the producers may yet throw it out. The right hon. Member for Don Valley is in the same position, and we have no alternative but to do the same ourselves. We must back this Scheme because we are committed in all suitable cases, and we must hope that it will satisfy the producer.
I come now to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1949, and to deal with the safeguards under the Acts and the Scheme which the Minister has mentioned. The Minister is to provide a list of producers. Can he produce such a list? How will he get the registered voters unless he can produce it? Secondly, it is provided that the Minister shall appoint under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, consumers committees which are one of the safeguards in the Act, and a committee of investigation. As the Act is apparently mandatory, I should like to ask the Minister when these committees will be set up.
Then one of the conditions under the 1933 Act is that the Minister has the power in Section 1 to regulate imports. I would like to ask him not whether he will do that, because that lies in the future, but what power the Minister has under recent legislation and under G.A.T.T., for instance, to regulate the importation of eggs and to what extent Section 1 of the 1933 Act is, in fact, applicable to importation. There may come a time, as we are now producing over 90 per cent. of home needs, when it might be necessary to give

some protection against imported eggs, otherwise the Scheme might fail. The right hon. Member for Don Valley joked about certain Ministers opposing the Government in 1931, but the root objection in 1931, under the Labour Government's Act, was that there was no protection, and a marketing scheme without protection, in those days at any rate, might well have failed.
As to safeguards, the Minister appoints at least two and not more than one-fifth of the membership of the board to represent consumers of eggs, not traders. That is a very efficient safeguard. Under Section 2, the Minister can issue Orders if the board does anything by way of restriction of quantity or of price which he regards as not being in the public interest. This is the first time, under the 1949 Act, that public interest comes into the picture, and this is far wider than efficient production and marketing of the product. "Public interest" which nobody has ever defined is a very wide safeguard to the consumer.
Then, under Section 4, the Minister may issue a temporary order to prevent injury to the public interest. Such an order could be issued upon the complaint of anybody—the trader, the wholesaler, or anyone. That safeguard, too, is an extremely valuable one. Lastly, under paragraph 37 of the Scheme, joint consultative committees are being set up.
Having explained the powers under the Acts and under the Scheme, I am not sure that it is really necessary tonight for us to explain the Scheme. What we have to be satisfied about is that the Scheme is in accordance with the Acts, and my right hon. Friend has amply shown that it is. If we wanted to go further and criticise a certain scheme, we should be criticising the Acts, and this is not the occasion for that. If someone wanted to do that, it should be done by a Motion or in some other way.
I believe that the Scheme is completely within the Acts of Parliament to which both sides of the House are pledged. I do not propose, consequently, to go into its details. I merely conclude with this remark. The Government have got out of State trading in eggs, and that is a good thing, but we cannot leave a void. The void is being filled by this Scheme, which is in accordance with Acts of Parliament to which both sides of the


House are committed, and, therefore, I consider that it should stand its chance in the poll of public opinion of the registered producers.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Coldrick: I oppose the Scheme. I admired the sedulous way in which the Minister sought to find reasons to justify a policy which certainly has the commendation of the producers but has very little support from the consumers.
I was astonished to hear the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) suggest that he would be prepared to go so far as to urge people, at the behest of the House, to join a certain association and thereby use compulsory powers in relation to the Scheme which we should not dream of employing elsewhere.
In order to be clear about the Scheme, what we, as hon. Members, have to realise is that the Minister proposes to set up a board of twenty-one people, seventeen of whom will be chosen exclusively by the producers, and four by the Minister to represent consumers and others. It is fairly obvious that the seventeen will have other business to do, and that it cannot be a full-time board devoting itself entirely to the question of marketing. The result is that the Scheme makes provision for the establishment of an executive, which will be composed of seven persons, including one representative chosen by the Minister. We are now confronted with the situation that we have seven people, six chosen by the producers, given virtually totalitarian powers in regulations dealing with the marketing of eggs in this country. I am given to understand that the seven will control the marketing of eggs to the extent of about £100 million turnover within this country. Does any hon. Member suggest that those people are sufficiently competent to be entrusted with a task of that character?
We should recognise the powers which will be conferred on it once the board is formally established with its executive. It has the power to regulate the supply of eggs to a substantial extent. It will proceed to regulate prices, because daily and weekly it will use the packing stations as an agent to prescribe the minimum charges which will be paid to

the producer. The packing stations will know, with the subsidy provided at the taxpayers' expense plus the possibility of the consumer being fleeced, that a certain price will be raised. The executive, acting on behalf of the board, will determine what the minimum price will be.
Having given the board the power to determine prices, we will give it the power to determine how many packing stations will operate. It has sufficient power within the Scheme—apparently it does not intend to exercise it at the moment—ultimately to be able to decide where the producer shall send the eggs, whether to one particular packing station or another. The board has the power to establish packing stations. What is to prevent it ultimately coming to an arrangement whereby it will dictate to the producer the particular packing station through which the eggs shall be passed to be tested and graded and so forth?
Having been given these powers, the board will have the right to issue licences. There will be two forms of licence, licence A and licence B. Under licence A it will be possible for the producer to sell directly to the consumer, provided that he is prepared to be registered and to conform to the conditions laid down by the board. Hon. Members should not be hoodwinked by the statements which have been made. Anybody with an ounce of experience knows perfectly well that it will be possible for the board to prescribe for the producer such conditions as to make it almost impossible for the producer to continue in business, unless he exactly conforms to the behest of the board.
I am amazed at the attitude of hon. Members opposite, who are always concerned about Government regulations, about snoopers and people of that type, giving this board the Dower to determine that any producer shall keep his accounts in a manner prescribed by the board. He will have to send returns to the board in the approved fashion. I can well imagine that the ordinary producer, who is more concerned with producing eggs than with producing red tape, will curse the authors of this measure as much as hon. Members opposite have cursed the people who were responsible for State regulations and things of that nature.
It seems that the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus is in favour of control so long as it is not State control. He is in favour of control so long as it is entrusted to a limited body of people, but he is not prepared to entrust those powers to Parliament to exercise them on behalf of people generally.
The same sort of thing happens to people licensed under licence B. They can sell to grocers and retailers and people of that nature, but the board will not trust them implicitly. In order that the board will be able to have some control over them, the board will insist that they put a stamp on the eggs to identify a person who happens to supply bad eggs. The Minister himself used a very bad analogy. He said that a Minister was like hens—he did not lay a good egg every week. It would be safe to estimate that a hen never lays a bad egg, while it is true that the Minister very often lays a bad Bill, even if he does not lay a bad egg.
I am not speaking officially on behalf of the Co-operative Movement, but my right hon. Friend, of course, made a great deal of play with the fact that there were only 700 or 1,000—whatever the figure was—objectors to this particular scheme. I happen to be a member of the Central Committee of the Cooperative Movement, which was responsible for registering a protest in the interests of 12 million consumers in this country. Believe me, that was not merely a decision of a committee. This matter went before one of the most democratic forms of assembly in this country. It was debated in the Co-operative Congress, and no matter what the Housewives' League, to which reference has been made, may think, we can rest assured that if the ordinary housewives of this country knew that this Scheme was being put forward at the behest of the producers, deliberately to benefit the producers, there would be far more objection to it than has been registered at the present moment.
Let me say in conclusion that I am not a bit interested in the pedigree of this Scheme. Hon. Members opposite may be proud that they introduced a Bill in 1931 and other people may be proud that we introduced another Bill in 1945 and another in 1949, but the plain fact

of the matter is that all these egg marketing schemes at the present moment are a monument to the influence and power of Sir James Turner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Do not let us be under any illusion about that. I have been with hon. Members opposite to some of the egg packing stations, and I have a great admiration for their efficiency, but members of the Farmers' Union themselves tell one very candidly that Sir James makes a proud boast of the fact that it is his policy that will be carried out in this Parliament no matter who happens to be the Minister.

Mr. Frederick Peart: Surely, my hon. Friend, with his connections with the Labour Movement, is aware of the fine work that Lord Addison did in starting schemes of this kind?

Mr. Coldrick: I am afraid that it is a long time since Lord Addison had anything to do with those schemes. Of course, the hon. Member should know perfectly well that to compare what happened between the wars with the conditions obtaining today is without relevance in any form whatsoever, because people are saying: "We do not want to go back to the chaos of marketing before the war." In the name of everything that is reasonable, do we want to go back to the conditions of unemployment among the miners, the engineers and everyone else that obtained during the inter-war period? So do not let us have any more of this argument about the conditions which obained then and which do not obtain now.
I say with great seriousness that I do not believe that one argument can be adduced in favour of compulsion being used to make the producers of eggs join an association which cannot be as validly adduced to compel every producer of coal to belong to a miners' union. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] If they do, it is because the miners have sufficient common sense to associate themselves with it. If any hon. Member opposite who guffaws about this matter or my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will stand up as an ex-miner—and I speak as an ex-miner myself—and instance one occasion upon which efforts have been made in this House to confer upon a miners' union the power to compel its members to join the association in the same way as the


farmers' union is asking us to give it statutory power to force other people to join that association, then I will readily give way.

Mr. T. Williams: If my hon. Friend does not know it, perhaps I had better tell him. Every mineworker in this country is a member of the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Coldrick: That form of sophistry is not going to deceive anybody. We are virtually advocating that if two-thirds of the producers elect to enter a producers' association the organisers of that association shall receive statutory power from Parliament to compel the other one-third to join whether or not they want to.
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman once again. Never has any trade union striven to use its influence to obtain statutory power to compel the whole of its membership to join its own association. There is not a single argument which can be used in favour of the producers of eggs which could not be used in favour of the producers of other commodities, unless we are to assume that the producers of eggs are much more important than the other producers.
This is the platform from which we have to make statements on behalf of the general mass of the people, and not merely in the interests of the few. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am in favour of orderly marketing. I believe that eggs should be graded, tested, and classified, but I strongly object to a producers' board being entrusted with monopoly powers. Consequently, I see no reason at all, even in the marketing of eggs, why the board should not be constituted in such a way as to ensure that producers, distributors, and consumers are all represented on it.
If a body were constituted in that way, adequately reflecting the vital factors concerning all those engaged in this important industry, I believe that it would command public confidence, but I bitterly oppose the fact that this House, so far from exercising its own rights, should give a small body of people the inordinate powers which will be conferred on it by the Scheme and, at the same time, give it power through a disciplinary board to levy fines of up to £100 upon members who are not prepared to comply with its behest. It is

a denial of liberty, and I am surprised that any hon. Member should be so forgetful of consumers in general that he is prepared to pander to the pressure of the people who have organised this Scheme.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. John Baldock: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) has, like many other critics of the Scheme, suggested that the great majority of consumers would be opposed to it if they knew about it. I saw a great deal of jubilation among the ranks of the Liberals whilst his speech was being made, and I felt that at the time they really thought that their ranks were going to be increased; that a new recruit was joining them, and that the clock was being put back to the nineteenth century. Other than that, I think we all enjoyed the suggestion that the 12 million co-operators were all violently opposed to any producer marketing scheme. I cannot think that the great majority of them have considered this matter very carefully, and in the end the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East admitted that. He said that if they had done so, they would have been more violently opposed than they are. I cannot agree with hint in that respect either.
There is a great deal of understanding among the urban population today of the problems of agriculture and that is a fortunate thing. The urban population do not want to see the same state of affairs existing on the land and in regard to agriculture as was the case between the wars. They have every reason to feel that the present system of egg marketing is reasonably satisfactory. They are getting a good and plentiful supply of fresh eggs at a reasonable price. They want to see that continue and the agricultural producers given a square deal.
Even were this Scheme thoroughly explained to them, I cannot agree that resistance from them would be considerable. There is no evidence of that. It seems to me that this Scheme strikes a balance very nicely. The danger of monopoly is avoided, because there will be three channels through which home-produced eggs may reach the consumer. There will be the board operating through the packing stations, direct from


the farm gate; or the farmer with a retail round as widespread as he likes, or the farmer selling direct to the retailer. There is no question of prices being fixed by the board. The producer-retailer, or the producer who sells to a retailer, can charge any price he is able to obtain, and the normal law of supply and demand which exponents of the laissez-faire economy like so much will apply. I cannot see how it can be contended that that represents any kind of monoply; and, of course, there is always the competition from foreign eggs in the background if the price of the home-produced article gets out of line.
There is the danger, if this board is not set up—I am sure this will be appreciated by the producers when they come to the poll—that tens of thousands of small farmers will be in a weak position when they come to deal with the relatively small but powerful number of buyers, of which I suppose the Co-operative Movement is one of the strongest. I cannot see how these small farmers can hope to hold their own, any more than the milk producers did before the Milk Marketing Board was set up; and we would not wish to see a return to the state of affairs such as existed before the Milk Marketing Board was set up.
I like producer-marketing schemes. I consider they are applicable to most categories of agricultural products, however unpopular they may be with many economists and the "Cheap-Food-and-Blow-the-Consequences-League" which offered evidence before the inquiry. Nor am I ashamed to use the word "planning." Few enterprises or concerns are successful without the use of planning, and I take satisfaction from the fact that the Tories were the original planners in the political field. In the days—to which we seem to have returned this evening—of the nineteenth century, when we had a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party, it was the Conservatives who wished to introduce a measure of planning by imposing tariffs when the economists and the Liberal Party were pressing for a laissez-faire scheme of things.
I hope that the power of advertising will be used by this Board, because it should be brought home to the public more than it is at present that fresh eggs are very good food value indeed. Nothing

will increase the sales of eggs more than knowledge on the part of consumers that those offered for sale are really fresh. That is even more important than advertising. The board should use every power it has to avoid the hoarding of eggs when prices are rising and to prevent a minority of producers and traders, the black sheep of the industry, injuring the sales of the great majority by allowing eggs which are not absolutely fresh to get through to the customer, thus giving packing station eggs literally a bad name.
The levelling up of prices over the year would be a valuable development. I do not think that the housewife likes having to pay widely fluctuating prices from month to month during the course of the year. That tends to reduce the consumption of eggs because many people stop buying when they find that prices are high, and they may not discover for some time that prices have gone down again. There tends to be a time lag and a reduction in consumption.
If there were a greater levelling out of prices there would be less temptation to hold back supplies when prices were rising steeply and a greater inducement to consumers to buy. I hope that modern methods of poultry management, with artificial lighting and so on, will help to even out the seasonal prices to make them more level throughout the year.
Also from the producers' point of view, I think that the board should do something to even out prices between grades. At the moment the producer gets the worst of both worlds. If he produces large eggs he may give away a quarter of an ounce on each egg. If an egg is one quarter of an ounce over one and seven-eighth ounces, which is the boundary line between the standard and the small egg, if an egg is a quarter of an ounce over the top, which is a 12½ per cent. increase in food value, it still goes for the same price. On the other hand, which is even worse for him, if the size of the egg is only one-thirty-second of an ounce—which is an absolutely infinitesimal amount which could not possibly be detected by any consumer—below one and seven-eighth ounces, the price falls by nearly one-third.
Obviously that is an inequitable situation. I hope that other grades will be introduced so that the price may more evenly correspond with the food value


which the producer is selling. To have a jump of one-third in the price for one-thirty-second of an ounce difference in the egg does not seem in any way reasonable.
I believe that if this Scheme is accepted by the House and by the producers three valuable results will follow. The consumer should have a greater supply of home-produced eggs; the producer will have an expanding market with orderly selling and the advantages of advertising, of which he is deprived at present, and also greater freedom than he has now; and the Government will have a saving in foreign currency, because the very small labour content in the cost of production of eggs means that we should be able to compete with the producers of imported eggs even if they are from countries where the standard of living is considerably lower than our own, provided that we can buy feeding stuffs at competitive prices. I hope very much that the Scheme will be accepted.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I want at the outset to say that I am wholeheartedly in favour of the improved marketing of agricultural products and better distribution. I also recognise that there have been important modifications in the original Scheme. Nevertheless, in considering this and any marketing scheme one should start with the general principle that voluntary cooperation is better than compulsory co-operation. The onus of proof is certainly on those who wish to put forward a scheme which involves compulsion upon producers to enter a scheme whether they wish to do so or not.
One must also consider the interests of the consumers as well as the interests of the producers. I emphasise that the consumer is an interested party as well as the producer. It is just as well to clear up the purpose of this Scheme. I understand that it is not intended primarily to plan production over a period of years in the light of needs which the Government or some other body estimates. I gather that the Minister is not attempting to put forward the Scheme on the ground that it is part of a national plan for the production of eggs. Indeed, I very much doubt whether eggs would be suitable for that

kind of system, whatever one's ideological views may be.
Perhaps I might remind the right hon. Gentleman of a reply which he gave to a question of mine about pigs on 17th November, 1955. I asked:
Would the Minister agree that pigs have not proved very amenable to Government planning, and does he consider this the fault of the pigs or the planners?
The Minister replied:
I think that probably the fault is the principle of Government planning.—-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 765–6.]
We are not considering the question either of Government planning or planning by a board, although I got the impression from the Minister that he appears to favour planning by a board as opposed to planning by the Government.
As I have said, we have to consider the interests of both the consumer and the producer, and in order not to be biassed I have considered the matter, first, from the producer's point of view. I do not claim to be in the business myself, nor do I claim to be a poultry farmer, but in days gone by I made a special hobby of keeping poultry. I kept 50 to 100 and I made it pay. Those were in the days when we got about 10d. a dozen for eggs.
In the light of that limited experience, I am very doubtful whether this Scheme will work. Furthermore, I foresee considerable difficulties arising, for example, in drawing the line between those who will come within the Scheme and those who will not. This does not affect very large producers, but it will be a matter of considerable concern to the small producers.
If we look at the Scheme we find in the definition paragraph, paragraph 43,
A producer shall be exempt…if…he has in his possession in the United Kingdom not more than 50 head of live poultry over the age of six months or such larger number as may from time to time be prescribed.…
As far as I can ascertain, "poultry" is not limited to hens in the strict sense of the word. As far as I have been able to ascertain, in the Scheme the female is deemed to embrace the male. If one is a small poultry farmer keeping 50 hens and one cockerel, one comes into the Scheme; but if one has only 50 hens, one is out of the Scheme.
My experience reminds me that during certain parts of the year one may have 30 poultry and during other parts of the year 80 poultry. What is to happen? I suppose that during a certain part of the year one will have to apply for a licence, otherwise there will be a danger of an inspector making a visit with the result that one may be liable to a fine of up to £100. One may be fattening cockerels over six months of age for Christmas. That is the kind of practical problem which the producer will have to face.
I can understand that it would be unfair were a poultry farmer entitled to go in and out of the Scheme from time to time during the year. It would be very difficult for the packing stations were that to be the case. Personally, I would see no objection to a provision whereby any one having entered this Scheme, would have to give, say, nine or twelve months' notice before leaving it again. In my view, that would not be contrary to the voluntary principle; on the assumption, of course, that it was a voluntary and not a compulsory Scheme. That would get over the difficulty of packing stations not being able to work on any satisfactory lines if producers were free to enter and leave the Scheme from time to time during the year.
I am not at all convinced that the Scheme will work for the benefit of the go-ahead producer. A producer might work out a new scheme for the marketing of eggs which might not be in keeping with the board's ideas. He might wish to develop, as some producers already have, date stamping, and may, by that means, have worked up a very successful clientele. As I understand, it is likely that the board would be opposed to such an idea. Individual poultry keepers, or groups of them, may in time develop new and better marketing schemes, and should be free to do so. I fear that this board may retard rather than encourage developments of that kind.
I have called paragraph 81 of the Scheme the "snooping clause," and paragraph 85 deals with penalties. I remember discussing the subject of snooping when we were dealing with the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill. The President of the Board of Trade then accepted the modfications that were put forward, and

abandoned the original proposals which would have given very wide powers of entry and so on. Here, we find the same kind of thing. Paraphrased, paragraph 81 provides that any person, on written authority from the board, may enter and inspect premises of a registered producer if he has reason to believe that the premises are being used to produce eggs. No magistrates' warrant would be required. In fact, the board would have wider powers than have the police and, as a Liberal, I cannot look on that with much favour.
Paragraph 85 provides that the disciplinary committee which is appointed by the board to enforce its own regulations can impose fines of up to £100 and, as the Minister knows, in certain circumstances, fines of up to £200 can be imposed. The general impression one gets is that the powers are very wide indeed, and a very great measure of responsibility is left with the board, from which there is no right of appeal.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I should like the hon. Member to clear up one point which is, I think, of some importance. Has he stated that the Liberal Party, as a whole, is against any producer board which is compulsory?

Mr. Wade: I do not think that we have stated that we are against any board which is compulsory.

Mr. Marshall: But has the hon. Member stated it?

Mr. Wade: I do not think that I have stated that I am against any producer board in which there is an element of compulsion. I do say that, in examining any scheme, one should start from the general principle that a voluntary scheme is better than a compulsory one, and the onus should be on anyone putting forward a scheme to show that the advantage lies with compulsion. So far, I have not been convinced of the need for these very great compulsory powers. That is the point I am trying to make. I was referring to the penalties.
I am not sure whether there is any right of appeal at all. So far as I can see, there is no right of appeal to the court. There is provision under paragraph 97 for arbitration. That paragraph states:
Any producer who is aggrieved by an act or omission of the Board may refer the matter to the arbitration of a single arbitrator…


but it is not at all clear to me whether, if a producer has been fined, that is an act or omission of the board. Perhaps that point could be clarified. It does not alter the fact that very great powers have been given to the board.
Then there is the cost of the Scheme. It is difficult to estimate what the cost is to be. I notice from the evidence before the Commission that it was estimated that the amount that would be raised by way of levy would be in the nature of £1 million. That is a large sum of money, and, directly or indirectly, it would presumably have to be borne by the consumer.
I think it is fair to say that there are many who hold the view of one of those who wrote to the Commission, and I am reading letter No. 301, which concludes as follows:
A lot of my friends who keep poultry think the same as I do about the proposed egg scheme.
I want to be quite fair; that is the original scheme—
We have had enough of restrictions and controls in the farming industry, and I would like to ask who is going to pay all the officials if we have a Board.
That was written by Miss L. M. Litchfield, a farmer's daughter, and Chairman of the Young Conservatives, West Haddon.
I approach this matter from the point of view of the small producers as well as the consumers, but I think that there is a further point which I might reasonably make from the point of view of the consumers alone. There is no provision, that I can see, which will ensure that retailers will not keep eggs on their premises for an unduly long time. There is no guarantee of freshness from that aspect of the matter.
I am not casting a reflection on retailers, but if it is claimed that this Scheme will ensure fresh eggs for the consumer I should like to know where it is provided that the retailer will sell the eggs within a specified period of time and what guarantee there is for the consumer. It is claimed that that is the benefit that the Scheme will bring about.
Again, the representation of the consumer on the board is, I think, quite inadequate. It is true of so many boards, and, once again, we find the consumer representation inadequate.
Finally, I should like to know exactly what are the Minister's views on the subject of competition to which the Commissioner referred. He summed it up as follows:
I am bound to say that, having reviewed all the evidence and thought over this matter long and cautiously, my conclusion is that the case in favour of competition is overwhelming.
I could not make out from the speech of the Minister, when introducing the Scheme, whether he had come to the same conclusion so far as the production of eggs was concerned. Until I am satisfied on that point, I must remain extremely sceptical.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I feel sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be disappointed if I do not make my usual protest against a compulsory marketing board. I have registered my protest on each board that has been proposed in the House, and I do so on this one.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has modified to a large extent the original suggestions that were made, but still there is that element of compulsion to which I object. It seems rather extraordinary to me, as a Conservative, when I remember the attacks we made when we were on that side of the House against the Lucas Report, that we should now be bringing in or sponsoring a Scheme which gives just as wide powers of monopoly as the Lucas Marketing Report suggested. in fact, a year or two ago, when one of the leaders of the National Farmers' Union was advocating a marketing board, the noble Lord made the comment to me that this was "out-Lucasing Lucas".
My real objection to this board is that it is completely unnecessary. It will put another huge expense on to the producer and consumer. The hon. Gentleman the Member of Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) suggested a figure of £1 million, but I have heard it suggested that it would be £2 million. I do not regard it as necessary to bring in a Scheme which is not needed for the marketing of eggs.
Let me make it quite plain that I ant a believer in voluntary co-operatives. I am a member of a corn co-operative, a shareholder, and a strong supporter; but if people in the corn co-operative wanted


to bring forward a suggestion, such as some members of the National Farmers' Union advanced, that there should be a cereals marketing board, I should fight them to the last ditch.
At the present moment, I get the competition which I think I am entitled to, being able to go either to the co-operative marketing board or to the trade itself for my prices. That should always obtain; we should always have competition. I agree with the remark of the Commissioner in page 2 of his Report, when he says that in his opinion competition is absolutely necessary; but he did not follow it up afterwards.
My reason for saying this Scheme is unnecessary is this. There are today some 600 packing stations. I am not attacking packing stations at all. I have recently been over two, one in Hereford and one in Maidstone, which are doing a first-class job, supplying eggs which are clean, sending them away fresh from those centres. I cannot think that anything could be done better. Why, therefore, should we have a board on top of them to try and tell them how they can market their eggs? They are finding their own market from the packing stations, and they are in competition with one another.
What I visualise is this. If a marketing board is set up, competition will finish. All these voluntary packing stations at present operating will come under one control and the Scheme will be compulsory. Farmers should think very seriously before they vote for a Scheme of this sort.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, have read the Scheme, and he will, no doubt, have noted in its terms that the farmers' co-operative packing stations will continue as separate entities, competing one against the other, and the one which is most efficient will be able to pay the best price to the producer.

Mr. Baldwin: They may or they may not.

Mr. Hurd: It is laid down in the Scheme.

Mr. Baldwin: They are already joining together before the Scheme comes into being, and, in any case, when the Scheme comes into being pressure will

be brought to bear on them to come under one wing all together. Time will tell. That is my impression.
In my view, it is something which is completely unnecessary, which we ought not to support. We shall see them all swallowed up. The bogey which has been raised by the suggestion that if we do not have this marketing board we shall go back to pre-war chaos is no more than a bogey set up in an effort to frighten the producers into voting for this Scheme. If it were likely that we should go back to pre-war chaos, how is it that something like 200 packing stations before the war were running, and running well, in competition with the open market? There are now 600 packing stations, and they could still run, as did the pre-war packing stations, without any compulsory powers. The packing stations, with their improved standards and technique, are in a stronger position today to maintain themselves than were the pre-war stations. That is one reason why the board is completely unnecessary.
I know it has been said that because A and B licences will be issued to producers there is not the element of compulsion; but if a man is issued with a B licence, why should he be allowed to sell only to a retailer? Why should he not be able to sell to a wholesaler? if any producer of eggs can find his own market without claiming a deficiency payment or making any call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or on the taxpayer, it would be all to the good to make the Scheme one in which producers who can sell their eggs should be entitled to do so without having any deficiency payments.

Mr. Hurd: So they will.

Mr. Baldwin: No, they will not. A B licence producer of eggs will not be entitled to sell his eggs where he wishes.

Mr. Hurd: Oh, yes, he will.

Mr. Baldwin: No, he will not. He cannot sell to a wholesaler. He can sell to a retailer, but possibly the terms laid down by the board will be such that he will not want to do so. That is the power that is being given to the board. I should like to see A and B licences cut out completely and producers who can find their own market permitted to do so without being compelled to obtain licences.
That is all I want to say in general against the Scheme. I am completely against compulsory schemes. A producer should be entitled to find his own market if he can, and the bogey about the wholesomeness or purity of the egg is simply humbug. If a producer finds his own customer and sells to him eggs which are not good, he will very soon lose that customer. A producer will take good care that when he finds a market with a customer he will keep the customer by selling to him eggs of good standard and quality. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that if a man is allowed to find his own market he will dispose of bad eggs.
I hope that before they vote for the Scheme the farmers will read particularly those parts of it which give powers of prosecution. This means the setting up of snoopers and all the paraphernalia that we, as Conservatives, say we like to avoid —and we are getting it in the Scheme. I hope that farmers will realise this and will not vote for a Scheme which might in the end lead to the nationalisation of distribution, because that is the machinery that we are setting up in this and other marketing measures. Although the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) advocated the introduction of the marketing scheme in 1929, he did not say that at that time also he advocated the nationalisation of land. For these reasons, I hope that farmers will think seriously before voting for the Scheme.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) is, of course, logical in his speech and represents those hon. Members on his side of the House who are against all forms of control by the State. The Conservative Party has progressed quite a lot in the last decade, but there are still some who are like the hon. Member.
The hon. Member, of course, is opposed to the whole thing. He would be opposed, no doubt, to the Agricultural Marketing Act. 1931, as his party was opposed to it. It is true that most of its members gave the reason that at that time there was no restriction of imports.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Hear, hear.

Mr. Philips Price: Quite rightly, that was one of the reasons. Another reason, however, was that a section of the party

opposite, of which the hon. Member for Leominster is a good example, was opposed to any form of organised planning or marketing.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), speaking from the Liberals' bench, is in a rather different position. In 1931, when the Agricultural Marketing Act was only a Bill, I, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), sat on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, and then the Liberals supported Lord Addison. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West has run away from that position, whereas the hon. Member for Leominster has been quite logical.

Mr. Baldwin: I thought I made it quite clear that I am not against organised marketing. I am against compulsory marketing. I am all in favour of the packing stations being run as they are at present.

Mr. Philips Price: I should like to know how we are to have organised marketing unless there is compulsory marketing in the sense that the majority of the producers are protected from the wrecking of the scheme by the minority. That was the whole point of the 1931 Act. So I hope that this Marketing Scheme will go through.
Farmers used to be criticised because they did not organise the marketing of their produce. I remember so well those days when the farmers of Denmark and Holland were pointed to as examples for British farmers to follow, because the Danish and the Dutch farmers organised the marketing and sale of their products. They sent their products over here, and got the best prices, because our farmers' products were not marketed in the same way. That the Danes and the Dutch were examples to our farmers was the view then of all progressive people, including Liberals in those days. The Liberals have fallen from grace. My word they have.

Mr. Holt: I was not born then, so I would not know.

Mr. Philips Price: During the last twenty-five years the British farmers have pulled themselves together and have organised the sale of their produce in a way in which it had not been done before. The difficulty all the time, of course, with voluntary marketing schemes


has been that there is a minority who will not, for one reason or another, come in, and so they make it impossible to run organised marketing schemes.
Hence the Act of 1931, out of which we have had a number of very successful schemes. The most successful of all is the Milk Marketing Scheme. I do not think that anybody would wish now to go back to the chaotic conditions that prevailed before that Scheme was instituted, when everybody could do as he liked. Now, under that great marketing board we have every conceivable form of development in the industry. There is publicity for it there are schemes such as those for the improvement of livestock, financed out of the profits of the Scheme. Then we had the schemes for potato, hops and wool.
Now a Scheme is brought along for eggs, and at once we hear criticism, not that the British farmer is not organising himself but that he is organising himself. Loud are the complaints now of those who were once criticising the British farmers for not being like the Danes and the Dutch, and those critics complain that the British farmers are monopolistic, and are exploiting the consumers and interfering with the rights of the individual.
What are the facts? Before the war the egg industry was not properly organised, and foreign eggs which were imported were well graded and marked and were superior to ours and commanded a better price. During the war the Ministry of Food came into the market, took over the control of the purchase and the sale of eggs, and the packing stations, which had been begun before the war, were developed still further during the war, and they were worked in conjunction with the Ministry of Food.
Now packing stations. both private and producer-co-operative, cover a very large proportion of the eggs produced in the country. They have been very successful. We have one in Cheltenham which covers a large part of the egg production in Gloucestershire. The result of all this has been that as long as the Government were trading in eggs we had assured markets, and with the packing stations operating we had properly graded and marked eggs. That condition will end now with the ending of Government trad-

ing, and if we do not have something in its place we shall have chaos once more.
As a result of what has happened in the last fifteen or twenty years, imports have fallen from 40 per cent. to 10 per cent. of our total egg production, and we now have first-class quality eggs, whereas formerly we did not and the'. foreigners had the best. The position surely is that unless we have a scheme of this kind we shall not be able to organise a proper marketing system or even to finance what money will come to the producer, according to the price of eggs, out of the deficiency payments.
An element of competition will come in here, too, because under the Scheme, as the Minister explained and I should like to confirm further, if the packing stations can get 2d. a dozen more for the eggs than was obtained up to a certain time, that 2d. will go to them. They will be on their mettle to secure better prices and to induce consumers to pay them. They will obtain those better prices only if the eggs are packed and graded in the best possible way. Therefore, an element of competition and of initiative still remains with the board and with the packing stations.
It is also the case that if prices go down the packing stations and the board will feel the effect, though not as much as they will do if prices go up. There are ample securities for the consumer under Sections 2 and 4 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1949. If any of the packing stations, or the board, abuse their powers it will be possible for the Minister, on complaints being raised, to deal with the matter by direction. The consumers will be safeguarded in the same way as they are now safeguarded under the boards which deal with milk, potatoes, and wool. Producers will have a steady market, and the board must take all the eggs that are produced. That is another important matter. It was not the case under the voluntary scheme.
It will also be possible, under this Scheme, to finance a publicity campaign. such as that which the Milk Marketing Board has successfully carried out. There is no doubt that the Milk Marketing Board has succeeded in immensely extending the market for milk. Dairy farmers pay back a small levy of what they get and the fund so formed goes towards the encouragement and publicising of milk sales.

Mr. Holt: I understand that one of the present problems is that we have too much milk at too high a price, which consumers do not take. Is the hon. Member envisaging that when we adopt this wonderful Scheme we shall have too many eggs at too high a price for people to eat?

Mr. Philips Price: That is another matter.
I am certain that if we had not had a milk publicity campaign, the saturation point of the consumption of milk would have been reached long ago, but, because of the campaign, the consumption of milk has been expanded and the same will happen with eggs. There will no doubt come a point—and we are probably reaching it now—when, unless the retail price comes down, the sale of milk will not be as elastic as it should be.
Modern dairy farmers with their new methods of production could easily stand a lower price to a certain point because of lower costs of production. Modern dairy farmers are always facing up to the problem of reducing their costs to help to make the consumers use as much milk as possible.
I am sure that unless we have a scheme of this kind, it will be impossible to advance a scheme for publicising eggs and encouraging their purchase and boosting the fact that British eggs are the best on the market. The small producer with 50 hens or fewer will have his chance to carry on. A very large number now sell their eggs to packing stations. Those sales will continue and probably expand.
I know a Gloucestershire packing station of which I am a member. When it first started, there was great difficulty, because people sold their eggs to the packing station when eggs were cheap, and, when eggs were dear, they sold them privately and got it both ways, with the result that the packing station was hit both ways.
The tendency in the poultry industry now is for prices to even out throughout the year. There used always to be a shortage during the autumn when hens and pullets were moulting. Now, owing to the fact that there is much more hatching in January, February and March, pullets are coming into lay in the autumn. Consequently, the tendency has been for there to be less disparity in prices throughout the year. There will,

therefore, be less reason for the small producer to want to run to the packing station at one time of the year and not at another.
Egg production is increasing all the time. The deep litter system is becoming more popular and is helping to produce more eggs and there are other systems, such as the battery system, about which I do not know so much, but which is said to be even more efficient. We shall have even greater production of eggs throughout the year and the packing stations will thus come more into their own. The first necessity is to get the Scheme through and the next thing is to see that the farmers and egg producers vote for it.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: The hen has indeed led us into some strange ways this evening. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been subjected to a great deal of propaganda. both for and against this statutory marketing Scheme. The objectors have been a good deal more ingenious and persistent than the sponsors of the Scheme, but hon. Members have evidently used their own judgment and thought n good deal about the pros and cons of this Scheme. It is evident from the debate that the majority of hon. Members have come to a wise conclusion.
I think that this Scheme is a wise blending of the interests of the producers, the consumers and the taxpayers. The producers will continue to have an assured basic level of price for their eggs, even though the Government goes, out of State trading in eggs, and there will be placed on the producers the direct responsibility for developing the market. I as a Conservative, believe it be very important that the producers of any kind of farm commodity should have a direct responsibility and a direct interest in the efficiency and economy of the methods by which their products reach the consumers. I say that this Scheme passes those tests. I believe that it gives a continuing price assurance and makes the producers directly responsible for the efficient and economic marketing of this product.
Consumers will be assured of continuing and ample supplies of fresh eggs. say "fresh" eggs, because a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the time it takes for an egg to be collected


from the farm, tested, graded and packed. I wish that my right hon. Friend could get the name of the stations changed from packing stations to testing stations. After all, it is the testing and not the packing that matters to the consumer. Testing gets rid of the eggs which may have a fault, such as a blood spot or a faulty shell, or be stale. I am sure that the consumer will continue to get an ample supply of fresh eggs, and, indeed, even fresher eggs, as the testing station programme continues to expand.
Today, the British consumer is getting eggs at a cheaper price than the consumer on the Continent of Europe. Were that not the case, we should have Danish eggs coming here instead of being sent to Western Germany and Belgium. Consumers are benefiting by the present arrangements and that will continue under the Scheme.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman is not really suggesting that cheaper eggs in this country are a result of the efficiency of the producer? It is because of the subsidy.

Mr. Hurd: I stated as a fact, and it is a fact which I will confirm, if the hon. Gentleman did not hear it the first time. that eggs are cheaper in this country today than in Western Germany and Belgium. Otherwise, Danish eggs would be sent here rather than to other continental countries. That is what I said, and I repeat it for the benefit of the Liberal Party.
The taxpayer will benefit under this Scheme more than by the continuance of State trading in eggs. No blank cheque is to be given the producer. Indeed, we are in no danger of blank cheques being given to the producers either of milk or eggs. With eggs. as with the scheme for milk, the producer will have to match the market with efficiency and economy in the distribution of eggs to the consumers and by better salesmanship. If they make a good and economical job of it, they will score; if not, they will fall down. I think that that is right, and the Government will not have to underpin all the weak places in the distributive system. Part of that will have to be done by the producers themselves.
There is no question at all of a monopoly. The producer who does not want to sell his eggs through the Scheme need not do so. He can hawk them

direct to the consumer, as I used to do before the war, or sell them to a retailer. In this Scheme there is no monopoly affecting the producers and, certainly, there is no monopoly affecting the consumers. They can buy direct from the producers, or go to a retail shop that buys direct from the producers. They need not necessarily buy eggs which have passed through what I prefer to call testing stations. On all those counts I am sure that we are right to send this Scheme on its way with our almost. if not complete, universal blessing.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) amused himself by poking fun at some of the objectors to this Scheme, but the fact. is that, apart from the people whom he listed, every conceivable interest in this industry also lodged objections. They ranged from the producers, the packers and the retailers to the consumers. Interests representing more than half the total retail trade, who do know something about eggs, objected to the Scheme.
The Commissioner himself said, in paragraph 45 of the Report:
Accepting as I do, that the absence of competition, the denial of choice to the housewife and the difficulties of enforcing the present Scheme are valid objections and are not outweighed by any of the advantages claimed by the promoters, the easy course is to report against the Scheme as a whole.
Tonight, however, we have the Scheme before us. One would have thought that, against all the conglomeration of objections, there would be some very urgent and compelling reason for the Minister to introduce the Scheme in the face of these doubts and objections. The fact is that there is no crisis facing the industry, such as those which faced other sections of the agriculture industry in the 'twenties and 'thirties, about which my right hon. Friend spoke.
The Minister himself indicated the increase in total output. Over 60 per cent. of home-produced eggs already go to the packing stations. As has been said, there are now 666 separate packing stations compared with 200 just before the war. Probably the most remarkable feature of the whole business has been the growth of the voluntary agricultural producer cooperatives, which now handle over 40 per cent. of the eggs which go from the packing or testing stations. In addition, the


Co-operative Wholesale Society, which also knows something about this and also objected to the Scheme, handles in its own packing stations an additional 3 per cent.
The industry has faced successfully competition from abroad, and today imports are negligible. Therefore, there is no question of this being an industry in decline. This is not a matter of an industry which has to be rescued from depression. I accept the point made by the Liberal Party and by spokesmen of the Conservative Party that a voluntary organisation with self-help and initiative is better than compulsion, and in this industry self help has been going from strength to strength.
Why at this stage, therefore, do we have to bring in a Scheme which vests most extraordinary powers in the hands of this board? No indication has so far been given of the administrative expense of the structure which it is proposed to set up. We ought to have more information about that. The point I wish to make is that, on the basis of the pre-war history of the industry, we should have tried a little longer and a little harder to encourage the voluntary principle. It was the voluntary principle which existed in the agricultural co-operatives in the two countries to which one of my hon. Friends referred. He might also have mentioned, beside Holland and Denmark, New Zealand, where the voluntary agricultural principle has been encouraged and has been most successful.

Mr. Philips Price: But they were working for an export market. They had not got a market like the one we have. There is a great difference.

Mr. Beswick: I should have thought that it would have been easier to organise one's home market than to organise against competition overseas.

Mr. Philips Price: No.

Mr. Beswick: The fact is that in this country, organising for the home market, the voluntary principle has been expanding successfully, and it seems to me wrong to suggest that the alternative to the proposed Scheme is chaos. The Commissioner was quite categorical about this and said in page 19 of the Report,
I fail to see any danger of a return to pre-war conditions if the present arrangements continue.
That seems to be the opinion of many people.
I also speak as a member of the Cooperative Movement. I am not opposed to orderly marketing—not at all. Nor do I want to see a return to laissez-faire. I do not want to see low prices for the consumer at the expense of the producer. It seems to me that a lesson which we have learned not only in this country, but throughout the world, is that in the long run it is in the interests of the consumer equally with the producer that the producer should get a fair price. What we do not want are the booms and slumps. We want the orderly marketing of tested and graded eggs.
If it is accepted that it is in the interests of the consumer as much as the producer that these things shall be arranged, why do we want a board of this kind? Why does the Minister put forward proposals for an organisation which is to be controlled by a board of which 17 of the 21 members shall be elected by the producers themselves and only four appointed by the Minister? How can we persist in arguing that this is a national industry which has a national service to perform when it is to be controlled by a narrow sectional interest, admirable as that interest may be?
No one would for a moment seek to justify this kind of representation in a manufacturing industry. It is simply that we have a hang-over from a period when sympathies were with the depressed agricultural industry of the 'twenties and 'thirties. We are today operating in a different kind of world from the world of those days; there is a different economic situation. We should make an adjustment accordingly.
If the producers are to be encouraged and helped to organise their own industry, why arm them with these powers of compulsion over their fellows? As the Commissioner said, in page 18:
If the packing station egg is as good as the promoters and the trade say, it is bound to succeed given the present prohibition of wholesaling, and the packers will consolidate their position and advance rather than break down.
The very fact that these powers of compulsion are needed seems to me to be a criticism of or lack of faith in the Scheme. We should be relying for some time longer, I feel, on the voluntary organisation.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) to the penalties which are to be exercised


by the disciplinary board. I cannot imagine why we made such a fuss under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act about giving power to members of a trade court to impose a fine on their fellows when here, by Statute, we are giving some producers, responsible to no one but themselves, the possibility of imposing a fine of up to £100 plus half the price of the eggs which any offending producer might have sold. These are extraordinary powers, with no right of appeal to the courts at all.
I sympathise with those independently-minded producers who also object to the Scheme but who, in seeking A licences or B licences, are still compelled to make all such detailed returns to the board, who, incidentally, are their competitors. That seems to be quite wrong.
I do not want to go into a lot of detailed criticism. One could make a lot of the difficulties of enforcement. I must say that I do not see how many people are to be required to go round checking up on this number of 50—and not just 50 birds, but 50 birds of a special age. They must be over six months old. That work will entail a lot of waste of administrative manpower at a time when we can ill afford it.
While I am on the point of administration, can the Minister give any assurance that the levy of ½d. a dozen on sales will be adequate for the future? Does he really think that that will be the maximum amount which the board will need to raise for administrative purposes? I rather fancy that before so very long it will want to increase that maximum.
Reference has also been made to the board's improving the efficiency of production, but there is absolutely nothing in the Scheme to indicate that it will engage in any sort of research. It is not, apparently, to be empowered itself to produce eggs, which would give it the facilities to carry out research. The board is empowered to do a lot of things, but the power to engage in useful and necessary research for efficient production and improvement of the quality of eggs—research which probably could not be carried out by the rest of the industry—does not seem to be vested in the board. I should like the Minister to tell us whether he envisages that the board will carry out that kind of research.
I want to say something about the argument used against the voluntary principle. As I understand, the main argument used against continuing a voluntary co-operative system is that there would be no power to ensure a steady flow of eggs through the packing stations throughout the year. That has been answered in part by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). Recent history has indicated that the peaks have been ironed out; that it is possible to eliminate, to some extent, the flush period. The ratio between flush and lean period is now about 2 to 1, as against the former 4 to 1.
It does not necessarily follow, therefore, that there will be this readiness to go to the packing stations in the flush period with a surplus of eggs, and then to sell outside in the free market in the lean season. But even if that is not so, can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether he is quite satisfied that under the present Scheme there will not be this same problem? The A and B licence holders, I understand, can still send their surplus eggs to the packing stations in the flush period. If so, we are facing the problem of the flush period in any case, even though we do vest the board with all these powers of compulsion and consequent penalties.
I come to the initial poll. I believe that if this Scheme were put to a free vote of the House—we have had objections from the Liberal, the Conservative and the Labour benches—it is doubtful whether it would be approved. Even if it is approved, it will still have to go to the industry. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the conditions under which the producers will be asked to vote? Will it be made clear to them that they are not voting for or against a guaranteed price? Will they be told what the alternative to the Scheme will be? Will the Minister assure them that the alternative to it is not the complete elimination of the guaranteed price?
If they have that assurance, I think that it is quite probable that the producers themselves will not give it the necessary two-thirds majority. As there is this doubt in the industry itself, as there have been doubts expressed by the retailers and by the representatives of the consumers, it seems to me that the


House ought not readily to approve the Scheme in the first place.

11.0 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I apologise for intervening and detaining the House even for a few minutes, but there are one or two points which I should like to have clarified.
I am surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). He did not appear to me to like anything at all under the Scheme or outside it. He hated booms and slumps. He did not seem to like any form of organisation.

Mr. Beswick: I said that I favoured the extension of the voluntary system of agricultural co-operatives. If that is not enough, I would have gone on to say, had there been time, that I prefer the independent marketing commission.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: What we are surely doing is to examine as a House, first. whether there is anything in this Scheme contrary to the public interest. I must say, having examined this matter, and having heard all the arguments inside the House and outside, that I cannot say that I see anything within the Scheme which is contrary to the public interest. I cannot see that the consumer stands at risk. Therefore, I do not think that on that ground I could possibly oppose the Scheme.
Secondly, we have to examine whether minorities among egg producers are likely to be bullied or to find life intolerable, or whether they are likely to be enforced into a straitjacket within which they find they cannot earn a living. There again, I think the safeguards are fairly secure. Surely that is a matter upon which the producers themselves have to vote.
In principle, the machinery of this Scheme would appear to me—and I am not an egg producer—to safeguard the interests of the minority, or the small men, call them what we may. I do not think that anything that has been said or written on this matter would confound that argument.
There are two right hon. Gentlemen in the House at present who know a lot about marketing schemes. I myself was at one time in the position of what used to be described by the late Mr. Maxton as neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. I happened to be Parliamentary

Private Secretary to a previous Minister of Agriculture. We were greatly interested in the development of improved marketing schemes. One can take it as a fairly good axiom that those schemes which have been initiated in the way that these schemes were gradually evolved, not only by Ministers but by the House as a whole, have been evolved along sane lines, and we have arrived at the position where the producer cannot hold the consumer to ransom. That was the danger about any form of marketing scheme at all, and in that respect we are fairly assured.
There is one other small point that I should like to raise. When these schemes are put before the public and appear before the House, surely they should be so devised and drafted that they can be clearly understood by everybody. The drafting of some of these paragraphs confounds my imagination. We find an alarming statement in page 14, where the sub-heading immediately above paragraph 44 has the sinister wording, "Partners, deaths. etc" That really is a most extraordinary juxtaposition of words.
Are not those words worthy of differentiation? I should have thought so. I hope that there are some hon. Members here who are partners. I hope that everybody within the Scheme will be a partner. To say "Partners, deaths, etc." seems to be a very peculiar way of describing the matter. I cannot understand it.
Then, again, there is an important paragraph at the bottom of page 22—paragraph 73 (2). I do not know whether anyone has read that carefully, but if any small producer can understand it then he deserves to be not a small producer but one of the biggest in the country—the sort of I.C.I of egg producers. This is how it reads:
All the provisions of sub-paragraphs (2) to (8). both inclusive, of paragraph 70 shall apply to Producer's B Licences as they apply to Producer's A Licences so, however, that the Board shall from time to time prescribe the forms of application for a Producer's B Licence and for the renewal thereof which forms shall require the applicant to specify therein the names and addresses of the persons to whom at the date of the application he proposes to sell under the licence.
It is perfectly clear to anyone who drafts that, clear to the Department and to the Minister. But I hope that he will explain it to the small egg producer. It is rather a shame, because they are people for whom we have the greatest


sympathy, and I beg that when these schemes are drafted a form of words will be devised which the lawyers will not understand but the laymen will.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: For some years I have looked with a great deal of interest on the fights that took place between what one might describe as the "Divi." members and the other members of the Labour Party, headed by the present Lord Quibell and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), against the present Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough, who was then the esteemed leader of the Cooperative Party. With the legislation before us tonight, due entirely to the Minister of Agriculture, we have had a return to the conflict between the consumers' and producers' interests, represented here by the Co-operative Party and by the Minister on behalf of the Tory Party.
One of the astonishing things about this House is that one never knows what will happen. Here we have the Minister of Agriculture, with his devastating charm, selling to the Tory Party the art of snooping and the principle of the "closed shop". And the Conservative Party has swallowed it, bell, book and candle, with one or two minor exceptions, unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin).
I have been an advocate of the closed shop for the trade union movement for a lifetime, yet here is the Minister of Agriculture supporting the principle of the closed shop. The only reservation he makes is that he is quite prepared to allow a few free producers to exist by means of the Egg Marketing Scheme on the clear understanding that they do not get the benefit of the subsidy—that is, those who are in receipt of or possessing 50 head of poultry. If they want to opt out they can do it, but they do not get the subsidy.
In principle, I am all in favour of orderly marketing. I have always stood for reasonable security for the producer. and a fair deal for the consumer. I do not think that I am quite as capable of pursuing the middle road, with the same arts and graces, as the hon. Member who spoke for the Liberal Party

tonight, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). The way he steered between sin on one side and virtue on the other was absolutely amazing.
This Scheme has an astonishing amount of machinery about it, and I should like to know whether the Minister can bring the cumbersome machinery by which the Scheme is to be operated within something like measurable proportions. We have the board; we have the joint consultative committee; we have the advisory committees; we have a general election scheme here and we have the returning officer. We have all these officials running about for the board, the advisory committees and the joint consultative committee. I should think there must be about 400 officials provided for in this Scheme.
The Minister, who is not very keen on inspection, although he has come down 100 per cent. in favour of it tonight in this Scheme, is to provide an army of inspectors. My right hon. Friend said there were about 800,000 poultry keepers. I understand that in this Scheme there will be about 300,000 poultry keepers. It will be an arduous and costly job to go about inspecting making sure that they are all keeping their accounts and books properly and doing everything they must do to fulfil the conditions for receiving their licences under the Scheme. The job will require an army of inspectors.
Particularly in view of the appeal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made for everybody to be engaged in productive work, I would ask the Minister to look at the Scheme again with a view to simplifying the machinery, and to making it less profitable for unproductive officials, because they constitute an on-cost upon the work of the producers. What is certain about this Scheme is that it will provide a considerable number of people with nonproductive employment.
It will certainly mean that the packing stations will be secure in their profits. In passing, I would support the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) in his suggestion that the stations should be described as testing stations and not as packing stations, because, after all, testing is the main function for which they exist.
What do the Government get out of it? The Minister is pursuing for eggs the same policy as is pursued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government for housing. That Minister says to the nation, "Let us knock politics out of housing by foisting the responsibility for the provision of houses entirely upon the local authorities." The Minister of Agriculture says, "Let us knock politics out of the subsidy," and places the whole responsibility for administering the subsidy upon the board. Therefore, any criticism to be sustained for administering the subsidy will in future be borne by the board and not by him.
One of the defects of the Scheme is that the control breaks down at the point of the first sale. There is no further control by the board after that, though the eggs have still to pass from the retailers to the consumers. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary answer this question? How will the consumer get fresher eggs than now, if this Scheme is adopted? I ask because one of the leading members of the board said the other day that if the housewife knew her job she would not buy an egg that was less than ten days old. That is a reasonable paraphrase of what he said. If that is the language used by a present member of the board, it does not encourage us to expect the consumers will get fresher eggs from the producers than they do at present.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I see that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to reply, and I want to ask him a few questions calculated to embarrass him before he does so. First, is there any hidden significance in these proposals? The reason I ask is that, on page 31 of his Report, the Commissioner says:
Another line of criticism is that this Scheme is merely the flag flying before the launching of a Fatstock Marketing Scheme. A statement publicised as coming from the N.F.U. since the Inquiry seems to establish that this allegation is a fact.
If we look at the statement issued by the National Farmers' Unions, we see that in answer to Question 3—
Why have a scheme?—
the National Farmers' Unions say:
No scheme means … the guaranteed weekly price will go and be replaced by some form of deficiency payments to the industry as

a whole. This is bound to be unsatisfactory for producers—look at what has happened with fat cattle.
Is this the first sound of the bugles in retreat? Are the Government admitting that their policy has been disastrous to the producers and that we are now to get a new policy with regard to the payment of the guarantees to the producers; or does the Minister find himself once again in disagreement with the National Farmers' Unions?
I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to deal with another problem. What about the egg and poultry industry? The Minister mentioned the present price of eggs. What is the effect upon the subsidy? Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the Government's attitude towards the egg subsidy? Will they allow the egg subsidy to run up to sustain a lower retail price? This is a matter of vital importance to the industry just at present.
One has only to look at the general census figures to realise that the industry may be facing difficulties similar to those now facing the milk producers. Those affected are entitled to know the attitude of the Government towards the industry and whether the Government are prepared, through the subsidy, to sustain a retail price which will enable the industry to face any difficulties it may face in the flush of next year. In view of this, I should have thought we would have heard more from the right hon. Gentleman about the problems of the egg and poultry industry, and that we might have heard something about the progress being made in the industry in technology and the economics of industry, but of that we have heard nothing.
We know that the promoters are making a point about pooled transport costs. I do not wish to discuss the merits of that proposal, but I would like to have heard the Minister's view about it. Is it his view that the outlying producer should be supported in this way, or does he believe that the time has come when we should think more broadly, perhaps, of supporting the outlying producer for social and broad agricultural reasons?
The Minister touched upon the vital question of the subsidy and referred briefly to the enabling clause. It is true that it does not appear in the Scheme as it appears before the House tonight, but we are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for telling us what he has in


mind. I, for one, felt that what he told us was most unsatisfactory. I can imagine that the Treasury feels some relief that it has a Scheme which can be said to provide some incentive to the packing stations to get the best out of the market, but we know how the Scheme would have acted adversely against the subsidy had it been in operation in previous years. The subsidy would, in fact, have been £6 million more in the last year for which we have the out-turn figures. I should have thought the Minister would have dealt with that point also.
Quite apart from that and the fact that the Scheme shows itself, in the light of current experience, to be expensive, I should have thought that the Minister's common sense would have told him that any subsidy payment based on this estimated realisation price over the year is a had formula and that it provides every inducement to create a pessimistic outlook on the figures for the coming year. It is a very inefficient way of calculating the subsidy.
The Minister knows that many people, in particular the Committee on Public Accounts, have criticised the present system of distribution of the subsidy. I am not criticising the packing stations as such when I join with the Committee on Public Accounts in its criticisms. But surely, in view of the constant, reiterated criticisms of that Committee, the Minister and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it does not meet that criticism merely to preserve the status quo, for that is what the Scheme does in the system of payments. All the administrative criticisms which were made remain, because the administration remains the same. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have dealt with that cardinal point.
We all know that during the operation of the interim scheme there have been violent fluctuations in price. Does the present Scheme offer any better guarantee against those fluctuations? We all must recognise that considerable profits have been made by people who held stocks in the light of these fluctuations. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us of any way in which he will satisfy the public—for public money is involved here—that the holding of stocks shall not be used by individual packers and whole-

salers to their great profit. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of this experience, would have been bound to say that we on this side of the House have been right in our constant argument that the only way to make these guaranteed payments is by fixed floor prices, with seasonal variations, paid on grading.
I emphasise the financial side, because we ought to know that it was because of these financial arrangements that the Scheme was brought forward. We know that the Scheme did not come into being on the initiative of the National Farmers' Union. It came in reply to the Minister's proposal that there should be deficiency payments. I should have thought that the Minister would have endeavoured to satisfy the House about these financial arrangements, since they involve a very substantial subsidy.
We on this side of the House, of course, accept the packing station structure. We accept the need to improve the marketing arrangements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) pointed out, we have been consistently in favour, and remain in favour, of producer marketing boards. This was expressly stated in our election programme at the last General Election. I would say to those of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who have criticised this Scheme that we should remember that it is appearing against the background of guaranteed prices. Whether there be a scheme or not, or in spite of a scheme, the producer is to be entitled to his guaranteed prices. Therefore, we should not be extravagant in making allegations against the producer in this case.
It is also a fact that the Labour Party proposed an egg commission. I again emphasise that an egg commission does not rule out a producer board. The proposal for an egg commission was made only because of the functions. An egg commission might affect the scope of the functions of a producer board, but it was proposed not because of any opposition to a producer board, but because it was thought that here were functions which could not be exercised by a producer board.
I call the attention of the House to the very wise words used by the then


Minister of Agriculture in a debate in 1938. when he said:
Such a large proportion of individual poultry-keepers are in a small way of business, however, that the regulation of marketing under a producers' marketing scheme would present a very formidable task; moreover, it is doubtful whether a producers' marketing scheme would be the most effective, or indeed, the most appropriate, machinery for securing, for example, the standardisation of grades. since this is an object which necessarily involves the regulation of marketing practices in the wholesale and retail distributive trades."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th July, 1938; Vol. 338, c. 904.]
I will at once concede that the same position does not obtain today, but those grounds are still valid.
It is for those reasons that we proposed that for certain functions a commission would be required. There is also the matter of the subsidy, about which we have had no satisfactory explanation from the Minister. I am certainly not satisfied by what has been said that this is the most efficient or effective way of administering the subsidy.
There is the further difficult question of variable supplies subject to seasonal fluctuations. I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the fluctuations are upon a very sensitive market. It is for that reason that we have to envisage some control over supplies, whether imported or home produced. Imported supplies have for the moment become such a minor part of our total supplies that we should be prepared to safeguard ourselves against the importation of supplies having an abnormal effect on the market at home. Home supplies pose the same problem of providing some machinery for removing temporary surpluses from the market. It is because either of those actions would affect and would be calculated to affect the retail prices that it is at any rate arguable that these are matters which would be better handled by a commission.
I emphasise that it is for those reasons that a proposal for a commission has been put forward and not because of any innate allergy towards a producer board. On the contrary, we have supported a producer board and we can envisage within the commission a place for a producer board for eggs. What we are considering, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said earlier, is something different. We are considering the role

of the producer board where we have no commission and where we have an utter absence of Government policy, an absolutely negative attitude from the Government showing, to quote the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), that the Government are out of the egg business.
The Government still have a responsibility if only because of the subsidy. They have a responsibility to the producers in any case. It is because we have to face this position that we have some very real doubts about the efficacy of the present proposals. I have some very real doubts about the Commissioner's Report. I concede that it is very entertaining, but I find that on important issues it is lacking in consistency. It is unfortunate that the Government have done worse than accept the Commissioner's recommendations—they have gone further.
We have to recognise that if the purpose of this Scheme—and this is the purpose put forward by the promoters—is to encourage—we do not want to exaggerate too much the element of compulsion—the recognition and acceptance of a standardised article, the graded egg, and so encourage its consumption, it is unfortunate that the present Scheme provides for such a wide measure of exemption. After all, at present one-third of the aggs do not go through the packing stations. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not present in the Chamber, but we have had the comparison, odious though it be, continually made between the fresh egg and the graded egg. This is likely to be aggravated if the number of birds is to be increased to 50 and we have A and B licences which the producer can obtain as of right.
I regret to say that I am not overenthusiastic about advertising. The milk advertising campaign has not succeeded. The consumption of milk has fallen this year. The Milk Marketing Board may say, and one cannot dispute it, that, but for the advertising campaign, the fall would have been greater. As a consumer I see appeals to eat fish, drink beer and drink milk, and now it will be to eat eggs. These appeals, as a totality, have little effect on me. Some advertisements I prefer more than others. I very much like the Milk Marketing Board's advertisement of an attractive young lady


drinking milk, but I judge these advertisement on artistic grounds rather than on consumer merit. We can exaggerate too much the effect of advertising.
We support this Scheme, we do not oppose it. We wish the producers good luck. We hope that they can inculcate into the market a sense of greater orderliness and we hope the producers will appreciate the importance of a recognised standard egg. But at the same time we are disheartened by the fact that the Government have shown an entirely negative attitude to the problems of the industry, problems both of production and distribution. They have produced a Scheme which, to me at any rate, appears to be inadequate and not calculated to attain the object of broadly gaining the acceptance of a quality standard for eggs; nor for improving the speedy and efficient distribution of eggs.
The real failure of the Government—and it is why I began with my first question—is to do anything to restore the disturbance which has come to the agricultural industry.

Mr. Hurd: Oh, no.

Mr. Willey: That is the real failure of the Government.
I have read the long-term policy, and I can understand the relief of the members of the National Farmers' Union at being told that their income will decrease only by a certain amount each year. I should have thought that in other circumstances it would have been a statement regarded as far from encouraging. It is because it has been so regarded that we can appreciate the disturbance at present existing in this industry, and unfortunately this Scheme will do nothing to relieve it. While we accept and do not oppose this Scheme, we can only say that we are disappointed that the Government still maintain a negative attitude and have not taken a positive and strong attitude towards this vital and important industry.

11.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We have had a very interesting debate during which a variety of views have been put from all sides of the House. I will endeavour to pick up as many points as I can in making a reply.
First, in replying to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I really feel that perhaps the night has been wearing on a little for him and that he has been dreaming. The agricultural industry is not in a disturbed state at the present time. It has never been more optimistic. I have no time to go far into the general picture there—and I think I might be ruled out of order if I did—but it would be one which would be entirely creditable to the Government.
The answer to the specific point which he made about payment of the deficiency payment on eggs, if the retail price runs lower than was estimated, is that we shall meet it. We are indeed doing so now, and we shall implement the price guarantee as we made it at the last Price Review. With regard to pooled transport costs, our view is neutral. That is why we agreed to the Scheme carrying a provision which leaves it for the producers to decide for themselves. If those with the lighter costs wish to help out those with the heavier costs, we feel that it is up to them to decide.
No financial agreement could be made until a Scheme has been brought into operation and a board has come into being. As soon as the board has been constituted, the details of the arrangement will be settled. My right hon. Friend gave the outline. When that is done, a Section 4 Order under the 1947 Agriculture Act will be brought before the House in order to implement that agreement, so the House will have full opportunity to debate it. The financial arrangement which my right hon. Friend outlined is really a very sound one, and I feel that the hon. Member did not give it sufficient thought. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) referred to it. This profit-sharing arrangement is a thoroughly good one in giving the producers a direct incentive on the one hand to get the maximum efficiency in marketing and, on the other hand, to get the best they can out of the market. I think that if the hon. Member looks into it more closely he will see that it is sound.
I turn to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who asked a series of questions. The levy can be raised above ½d. only by the resolution of the producers


at an annual general meeting. If they wish to spend more of their own money in that way that is up to them. I should think it is very unlikely that the board will need more, or, indeed, that the producers would be willing to vote for more. because for anything that the board has extra the producers will get less.
The board can promote research. That is provided for in the Scheme. On the question of A and B licence holders sending the balance of their eggs to the packing stations, they can do so. That answers the question of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). All producers can send eggs to the packing stations and get the benefit of the guaranteed price, whenever they want to. That includes those with fifty hens and under. Those with fifty and under would probably not be registered, because they do not come within the terms of the Scheme: but they could, if they wish, send their eggs to the packing stations whenever they want to.

Mr. Moyle: Not if they sell direct. They do not get the subsidy.

Mr. Nugent: If they sell direct to consumers they do not get the subsidy, but if they sell partially to consumers and send the rest to the packing stations they get the benefit of it.

Mr. Beswiek: If the A and B licence holders can send their surplus in the flush period, how will the Scheme fulfil the vital requirement of enabling a steady flow to the packing stations?

Mr. Nugent: As with any scheme of this kind, it is a matter of trying to get a reasonable balance between the technical optimum and the human optimum. One must have reasonable flexibility in the Scheme. In fact, the volume of eggs that these people handle is not so big, in our judgment, that it would seriously disturb the flow in the packing stations. We feel that in the interests of providing flexibility and giving freedom to those who wish to sell either direct to consumers or to retailers, that provision should be in. I think that it will operate satisfactorily.

Mr. Baldwin: My hon. Friend said that a producer with less than fifty hens would be entitled to send eggs to the packing stations, but surely he would have to be licensed. He could not send the eggs unless he were licensed.

Mr. Nugent: Yes he could. He would be able to send his eggs to the packing station and he would come on the books of the packing station, but he would probably not be registered and he would not be licensed. He would be outside the Scheme.
Replying to the Question concerning what the producers will be voting on, I have here a copy of the form they will be voting on; it is on the back of the draft Scheme, and I hope that it sets the matter out in a neutral fashion. I do not doubt that the promoters will handle it in a neutral way as well.
Turning to some of the remarks made earlier in the debate, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gave full and round support for the Scheme, which I welcome. I am sure that will help it on its way. His reference to the 1931 Act called to my mind a point made later by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price). If the Tories had opposed it. undoubtedly the Liberals must have supported it. It must have been embarrassing therefore to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and his hon. Friends this evening when they found themselves, if not opposing the Scheme, definitely out of sympathy with it. Lest they feel any embarrassment, let me remind them that in the debates on the 1931 Marketing Act, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) voted for the Bill on Second Reading and against it on Third Reading. In the words of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen, he steered the traditional Liberal path between sin and perdition. I hope that the hon. Members now feel comfortable again.
The complaint of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West about male birds being included in the number of 50 is not, I think, one of substance. Birds are very rarely fattened over the age of six months. if one male were there he would be there for breeding purposes; and if, as in the case quoted, he had 50 hens, he would be pretty busy, too. He would well deserve to be counted in.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked about the position of a producer who had been fined. He asked whether he had a right of appeal. He has a right of appeal on points of law to a court of law. On


the amount of the fine, he has a right of appeal to arbitration. That is in the Scheme.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) objected, as indeed did hon. Members on the Liberal benches, to the general structure, with inspectors, arrangements for private courts and fines. The fact is, as the Commissioner recognised, that these are essential to a marketing scheme, and if the House decided that there should be a marketing scheme, it would be inoperable without such arrangements as those, which are common to all other marketing schemes.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: There is a reference in Clause 85 (2) to an independent person. Does my hon. Friend envisage that the independent person, as chairman, will be paid by the board or will be a really independent person?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend immediate an immediate answer to the question, who pays the legally qualified chairman of the disciplinary committee, but I will let him know as soon as I can.
I wished to address myself briefly to the issue whether or not there is a case for a marketing scheme. The fact is that today my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for the various authorities which are controlling the marketing of eggs. Paying the minimum guaranteed price to producers, enforcing the grading and quality regulations, guiding and, to some extent, controlling the flow of eggs on to the market, trading in eggs through N.E.D.A.L., and dealing with surplus eggs—all these things are done by the Government. If they were not, the situation would be quite different. This, I think, answers the hon. Member for Uxbridge who asked: why take any action at all—there is no crisis in the industry?
There is not, it is true, but we in the Government, and, indeed, on the whole of this side, do not believe that it is the right function for Government to carry out this particular work. We believe

that the time has come when some other arrangements should be made to put it on a permanently satisfactory basis. There is, therefore, really a necessity to put something in its place if we are to maintain the present system, which is indeed working very well. The question is, then; what are we to put in its place —a marketing authority, or what else?
My hon. Friend has referred to the very large numbers of small units—and that has been commented on on both sides of the House—and the necessity for an organisation of some kind. About one-third of the eggs are consumed locally and sold from the farms, and about two-thirds go through packing stations. That represents about 20 million eggs a day, a pretty formidable number. Those are the eggs that go to the urban populations.
To keep this operation moving smoothly certain basic things are necessary. The first and most essential is sale by description; that is to say, the eggs must be graded for weight and quality-tested, so that the wholesalers, packers and retailers can sell them over the telephone and refer with confidence to what they have, and both parties know exactly what they are dealing with. The alternative would be that they would have to buy by actually viewing each consignment. If eggs are to be sold in these very large numbers they must be quality-tested and graded for weight. If one looks back to the pre-war system where a very large number of English eggs were not so treated, one sees the highly disorganised condition and the lower price the English egg usually commanded in relation to the imported egg, which was always graded for weight and quality-tested and, therefore, made a higher price than did ours.
Second, the Government subsidy should be paid only on first-quality eggs. They must be good, wholesome eggs and of reasonable size. Once again, we must test them and weigh them in order to ensure that. Thirdly, the Government guarantee, the price paid weekly to each producer, does need some kind of long stop buying if it is to be implemented by all packing stations. There must be a central buyer willing to take off the hands of the packing stations eggs which they cannot shift, at a price sufficient to return the guaranteed price to producers. I


therefore think the case is really unanswerable that there must be a central authority for the marketing of eggs if we are to retain a structure which is reasonably orderly and which will, on the one hand, give a fair price to producers and, on the other, a satisfactory supply to consumers.

Mr. Holt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not leave that point without dealing with the very important matter raised, I think, by his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) with regard to the voluntary co-operative schemes. The hon. Member recalled that before the war there were these schemes, that they had increased in number and were working satisfactorily. Obviously, there is great advantage if they can be further increased. Have the Government not considered whether they cannot further encourage voluntary co-operative schemes, and whether they would not do the job just as well?

Mr. Nugent: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in a minute. I just wanted to go on to deal with the question: why have a marketing board? But before I do so, I should like to inform my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon)— now that I have been made expert on the matter—that the chairman of the Disciplinary Committee would be paid by the board, but his appointment must be approved by the Minister. I think that I can give my hon. and learned Friend the assurance that we should certainly see that the chairman was a man of proper standing and integrity, and so would, indeed, be independent.
Returning to the general argument, the exemptions that my right hon. Friend described in his opening speech would satisfy most people, I think—although I realise not everybody—that we have made it possible for a producer, who wishes to sell retail to consumers or to retailers in his neighbourhood, to do so, and we have given a fair degree of flexibility even to the point of incurring some criticism from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that we have gone too far. I think that as we have got criticism from both sides, we are probably about right.

Mr. Moyle: Would it be correct to say that under the Scheme the aggrieved person would have the right of choice of the

arbitrator? Is it an agreed choice between the board and the producer?

Mr. Nugent: I think the answer is yes. If agreement cannot be reached, the arbitrator is appointed by the Minister. That is the normal machinery for arbitrations.
I think I have dealt with the questions that arose on exemptions. I would make one point on the question of licences. I rather fear that nothing that I say will completely convince the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East. Before coming to the debate this evening I read his speech in 1950 on the subject of the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board, and I notice that he put very similar arguments tonight, but with no less conviction.

Mr. Coldrick: I am waiting for the reply.

Mr. Nugent: The only additional thing he mentioned was an extra 1 million members of the Co-operative Movement.

Mr. Coldrick: That is correct. The Co-operative Movement is not static; it is progressive. It has increased by 1 million since that occasion.

Mr. Nugent: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the membership increasing to about 12 million.
To return to the point of licences, he wondered whether the holder of an A or B licence would be troubled with conditions which made the licence useless to him. He certainly cannot be. The Scheme is specific there. The main conditions that he may be required to observe are, if he has a B licence, that he must mark the eggs—but not grade them—and he may be required to keep a record of his sales of eggs and some accounts. Those are perfectly reasonable things. A B licence-holder will be required to keep a record of the retailers to whom he sells. None of those things will stop a man who wishes to sell in that way.
The general arrangements that we have made follow the Commissioner's recommendations, and to some extent go further, but I think the general feeling in the House is that they are sufficiently flexible to meet all reasonable considerations.
The point at which compulsion applies is the sale to wholesalers. There were


several inquiries about this matter, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster who asked why it was necessary. The answer is that if it is left optional to producers whether they will sell to the packing station—that is to say, to the board in future—our old friend the higgler appears. As some hon. Members have said—the bon. Member for Gloucestershire, West referred to it particularly—he offers producers a shade over the odds on a rising market. He takes the eggs to the towns, mixes them up and sells them as being full-sized eggs. He does rather well out of the retailer.
The result is that when the customer buys the eggs, she is short-weighted because she gets mixed eggs instead of full-sized eggs. Then when eggs are plentiful he does not come to collect and the producer throws the eggs back on to the packing station. The packing station, if it is a small one, is flooded with eggs which it cannot get rid of, and very soon it is out of business. One reason why there were no more than about 200 packing stations before the war was the very large number that went out of business in just that way. I can remember any number. The strong ones, in areas around London, could manage all right, but people out in the rural districts could not stand up against this competition.
I think everyone familiar with the trade will agree that if there is to be a comprehensive packing station service for all producers throughout the country it has to remain obligatory, so that all producers who are not covered by the exemptions, to which I have referred, should sell to the board and not outside it for wholesale. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) referred to this, I thought, most convincingly, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster to think again about this and to look back at the pre-war experience. I feel certain he will see that there is great weight in that argument.
Finally, the conclusion on this must be that producers cannot be free in this respect, except on the exemptions I have mentioned. So that brings one to the marketing board, and I do not think I need go over the alternative of the prewar Commission. The reason why we think a marketing board is best today is that we have got a comprehensive system of packing stations, so that there is a completely different situation to what there was in 1939. The marketing board has an advantage, particularly in dealing with matters like advertising, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, and by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West. Advertising is very much needed here, for a commodity which is competing with many other things. There is great scope for extending it, and there is no doubt that the board could do a big job in advertising. It could encourage prepackaging and could give greater consumer satisfaction in that way.
The safeguards are there, written into the Acts, on the one side for the consumer and the distributor and, on the other, the safeguards for the taxpayer are strengthened. by the financial agreement, which gives an incentive for the Board to get the best out of the market.
I feel that I can confidently ask the House to approve this Scheme. A central authority is needed for the marketing of eggs, to benefit producers and consumers. A Scheme of this kind involves producers in a large measure of discipline. We believe that self-discipline is best and that a producers' marketing board is the right body. I would therefore ask the House to approve the Scheme and to give producers a chance to vote on it themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft British Egg Marketing Scheme, 1956, copy of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS AS TO TAXI FARES)

Resolved,
That, if any Act giving effect to a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means increases any of the Customs and Excise duties on hydrocarbon oils, petrol substitutes and spirits used for making power methylated spirits, the Act may include provision relaxing, in view of the increase in the said duties, any limitations imposed by byelaw on the charges which may be made for hackney carriages.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

TRANSPORT (RAILWAY FINANCES) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision authorising the British Transport Commission to meet interest and other revenue charges by borrowing, to authorise advances out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so borrowed, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to give authority as follows:—
1. It is expedient to authorize—

(a) such payments out of the Consolidated Fund as may be required to enable the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to make to the British Transport Commission the advances mentioned below;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister by way of repayment of or interest on any such advances, and the re-issue of those sums out of the Consolidated Fund, and their application in redemption or repayment of debt or, in so far as they represent interest, towards meeting such part of the annual charges for the national debt as represents interest;

(c) the raising by the Treasury in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, and the payment into the Exchequer, of any money needed for making any such payments out of the Consolidated Fund, or for repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of those payments.
The advances above referred to are (subject to the provision made below)—

(i) such advances as the Minister may be empowered to make under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, by any amendment of subsection (2) of section eighty-eight of the Transport Act, 1947, extending the purposes for which the Commission may borrow so as to include the payment of interest on capital moneys borrowed by the Commission for the purposes of British Railways in the year 1956 or any of the next nine years;
(ii) such advances as the Minister may be empowered to make under the Act of the present Session of sums required by the Commission (up to a limit of two hundred and fifty million pounds) for meeting any deficit on revenue account of British Railways for the year 1956 or any of the next six years, or of sums required by the Commission for the payment of interest (accruing in or before the year 1964) on advances which the Minister is empowered to make under that Act.
For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above moneys borrowed to repay any temporary borrowing shall be treated as borrowed for the purpose and at the time of the temporary borrowing, and references in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above to the payment of interest or to meeting a deficit include references to the repayment of moneys temporarily borrowed to pay the interest or meet the deficit.
2. It is expedient to authorize—

(a) such payments out of the Consolidated Fund as may be required to enable the Treasury to fulfil any guarantee given under section ninety of the Transport Act, 1947, in relation to any British transport stock which the Commission may be empowered to issue by any such amendment of that Act as is mentioned in paragraph 1 (i) above;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Treasury by way of repayment of or interest on money paid under any such guarantee.

Resolution agreed to.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (EDUCATION BRANCH OFFICERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

12 midnight.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I should not have sought this opportunity to raise the question of the promotion prospects of squadron leaders in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force, which question I have been pursuing for about a year in the various ways open to me—and I must apologise for doing so at this late hour—had it not been for the fact that we seem to be going backwards rather than forwards in this matter.
It was as long ago as 20th January that the Under-Secretary of State wrote to me to the effect that the Committee whose task it was to consider the problems of career planning was reviewing this question and that he was very conscious of the importance, in the interests of both the officers concerned and of the Royal Air Force as a whole, of reaching a fair solution of these problems. Then, on 7th August, the Secretary of State wrote to me and said he hoped the problem of promotion to wing commander could be considered in isolation and in advance of the general study which the Committee was making of the Education Branch. However, on 28th November. in reply to a Question which I put to him, he said the Committee had not completed its study of the Education Branch. and in reply to my supplementary question he said that the problem was not one of immediate urgency.
The state of affairs to which I want to draw attention concerns a number of those squadron leaders in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force who joined between 1947 and 1950 and who attained the rank of squadron leader between 1950 and 1954. My complaint is that when they considered joining they were given to understand that their prospects of promotion were certainly reasonable, at least to the rank of wing commander. Those officers are now people in their early forties. It was not until they had been in the Branch a little time that they discovered the real position.

The real position is that they will have to stay on until the maximum retiring age for squadron leaders, which is 53, in order to get their retired pay, and yet their prospects of improving their position by promotion during that time are virtually non-existent.
It is, of course, perfectly true that promotion in the Education Branch is by selection after attaining the rank of squadron leader, but I think it should be remembered that those squadron leaders who were promoted betwen 1950 and 1954 and who were granted permanent commissions about 1948 were post-war candidates, and in their selection it is true to say that the highest qualifications for any part of the scholastic profession outside the universities were demanded. Indeed. Air Ministry Pamphlet No. 200 said:
The possession of a university decree (preferably with first-or second-class honours) will ordinarily be a requirement for appointment to a permanent commission.
The result is that there are about 58 of these men in this category. who are undoubtedly men of outstanding ability, and who ought not to be passed over, and yet many, indeed most, of them will never Bain promotion to the rank of wing commander and none of them to the rank of group captain.
I believe the reason for this long delay in promotion is to be found in the history of the Royal Air Force Education Branch. Prior to 1946 the Royal Air Force Education Service, as it was then called, was a civilian branch. It was paid according to the Burnham scale with certain modifications and with conditions appropriate to the Civil Service. When the Education Service became a uniformed branch of the Royal Air Force in 1946. however, those who had been recruited before the end of 1938 and who were still serving and were granted permanent commissions—this is the important part—all retained the existing Civil Service contract whereby they could remain in the Service until they reached the age of 60, irrespective of rank. That is the reason for the block in promotion, because the compulsory retiring age of other officers in the Education Branch is 57 in the case of a group captain, 55 for a wing commander, and 53 for a squadron leader or flight lieutenant.
On 6th February this year, my hon. Friend wrote to me and stated that no officer had been denied promotion because of the category of officers who stayed on until they were 60 years of age. That may well be, but, whatever happened in the past, it seems to me perfectly certain that in the future the presence of these officers, who can remain until the age of 60, will block promotion to the rank of wing commander for all other categories of officer.
As I understand the position from Answers given to me and to various other hon. Members from time to time, there are now 42 wing commanders serving in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force, 41 of whom can serve until they reach the age of 60. That in itself is an obvious block to promotion. because the normal retiring age for a wing commander is not 60, but 55.
I understand that there are likely to be some 36 vacancies for wing commanders over the next twelve years, but there are 143 squadron leaders. Twenty-nine of them. of seniority between 1946 and 1950. can go on serving until the age of 60, but there are about 58 in the category of which I am speaking, of seniority between 1950 and 1954, who are in virtually the same age groups as these other people and they retire at the normal age. It seems clear, therefore, that their chance of promotion before reaching the retiring age of 53 is very slender. As I have said, they are in their early forties. They are at an age when they feel that they must either get on or get out. I assure my hon. Friend that they would all infinitely prefer to get on, but the future seems to allow them no prospect of doing either. It is a matter of both justice and immediate urgency that these people should be told exactly their position and whether their prospects are good or bad.
So far, I have been trying to show that there is a definite lag in promotion. I would now like to turn to something which seems to me in some ways to be even more serious. The conditions of service for officers accepting permanent commissions in the Royal Air Force are set out in Air Ministry Pamphlet No. 200. I have with me copies of the 1946, 1949 and 1955 editions of this pamphlet, and I agree that in all of them it is made

perfectly clear that promotion after attaining the rank of squadron leader is by selection.
The point is, however—and I have corroborated this over and over again—that these officers, from answers to questions they put when considering joining, were led to suppose that the prospects of promotion to wing commander were much better than was the case. One expression which was used was that statistically their chances were fifty-fifty. Some were told, indeed, that their prospects were rather better than that. The later editions of the pamphlet state the compulsory retiring ages namely, 53 for a squadron leader and 55 for a wing commander. But I have looked very carefully through all of them and I cannot find in any part of them any suggestion that there is a category that can stay on until 60 years, irrespective of rank.
I have also a pamphlet entitled "Education Branch of the Royal Air Force," which I believe was produced in 1950–51. On page 26 will be found the words,
A substantial proportion of officers are promoted by selection above the rank of squadron leader.
I understand that that pamphlet was reissued in 1953, and I should like to know whether it is still being used when the statement that a substantial number are being promoted is both misleading and indeed untrue, unless the word "substantial" has an entirely different meaning in the Air Ministry from that which it has everywhere else.
It is apparent from my inquiries that the great majority of these officers, when joining in this way, had no idea that their prospects were so bad and that promotion in the branch was in any way not normal. It is no use the Under-Secretary saying that they ought to have known and that they were over-optimistic about their prospects. I cannot accept that. If these were uneducated men I would agree that perhaps they did not understand the pamphlet and the position. But these are people of exceptional intelligence. They would not have formed the impression that they definitely formed unless it had been deliberately given to them.
I do not know whether the Education Branch was short of officers at that time. I do not know what sort of high


pressure salesmanship was used to try to persuade people to take these commissions, but the fact remains that these people were misled. I say that deliberately. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some sort of hope to these officers and that he will agree that they have a real grievance and that something ought to be done about it.
I do not want to make any more criticisms. I should like to make three suggestions which I hope my hon. Friend will consider. The first is to allow optional retirement for older wing commanders before the age of 55 without prejudice to their pension rights. The second is what I believe is called overbearing of establishment, so as to permit promotion to wing commander of perhaps 60 per cent. of squadron leaders and to group captain of 50 per cent. of wing commanders, or some such figure. The third would be to allow officers to retire with full pension rights irrespective of age, provided that they have served for the necessary qualifying time.
I do not think I need assure my hon. Friend that I have not raised this matter from any desire to make mischief. I have raised it because I honestly feel that these officers have had a raw deal. They are not barrack-room lawyers or people who are trouble-makers and try to exaggerate imaginary grievances. They are first-class officers who are keenly interested in their jobs. They are doing it extremely well, and doing it none the less well because they feel that an injustice has been done to them.
My hon. Friend knows, as we all know. that an unrighted wrong can sometimes rankle. I appeal to him, for the good of the Service whose interests I know he has at heart, in his own sense of justice and fair play to have another look at this problem. I hope that he will be able to tell me that I am pushing at an already open door and that steps are being taken to put this whole question of promotion in the Education Branch on a fairer and more satisfactory basis.

12.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Christopher Soames): I should like to start by telling my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that there is no question of pushing at

an open door. On the contrary, he is pushing at a door which has never been closed. I am most grateful to him for raising this subject this evening. It is one on which he has questioned me and my right hon. Friend from time to time; but it is a detailed subject not easy to cover by question and answer, and I welcome the opportunity he has given me to deal with it at greater length. I hope that that will allow me to put the facts into proper perspective.
I know how assiduously my hon. Friend has studied the problem. He has certainly mastered his case and propounded it with great sincerity, but he will agree that a noticeable feature of his speech was that he did not quote the case of any officer whose promotion so far has been unduly blocked.
I propose to deal first with the central problem, which is the possible promotion blockage in the Education Branch in the future. I do not at all quarrel with my hon. Friend when he says that unless some action is taken there could be a blockage. Indeed, I hope we have never seemed to be guilty in any way of minimising the situation.
The questions which interest my hon. Friend are how the present age structure in the Branch has arisen, and what is being done to try to ensure that this structure does not unfairly prejudice the prospects of younger officers.
The Education Branch was formed in October, 1946, by bringing together suitable officers, a number of whom had been employed with the Royal Air Force as civilians before the war on educational duties. We are now at a stage where all the senior posts in the Branch are filled by officers who entered in that way and who are due to remain with us until they reach the age of 60. The reason for this age of 60 is either that such a retiring age has been carried over from that which they had as civilians, or that, as things now stand, they must stay for that length of time to acquire an adequate pension. These factors are peculiar to the Education Branch. Another factor not peculiar to the Education Branch, but applying to the Service as a whole, is that there are certain first-class men whom we wish to retain longer for the benefit of the Branch and of the Service.
To what does this add up? It means that, looking ahead, there seems real danger of the promotion prospects of younger officers who entered after the war deteriorating to an unacceptable extent once they reach the rank of squadron leader. There is no problem up to that point, since the Education Branch, unlike most branches of the Service, has time promotion to squadron leader. I can well understand that some officers have been thumbing through their copies of the Air Force List wondering how they will get promoted when so many of those senior to them are due to remain in the Service for so long.
However, I must make it clear that the problem still lies in the future. No one can complain of the promotion rate up to now. Half the substantive wing commanders now serving have been promoted in the last four years. The age and seniority of squadron leaders promoted to wing commander in the Education Branch compare well with other ground branches of the Service; for example, the average length of service as squadron leader of those promoted to wing commander during, the past three years has been eight years, which is much the same as in the Equipment and Secretarial Branches.
Even if we took no action at all, we should be able to maintain a flow comparable to this without difficulty over the next two years. Any danger of a promotion blockage arises after that. I stress this because my hon. Friend has suggested on many occasions, and he did it again tonight, that we are not bringing a sufficient sense of urgency to bear upon the problem. In point of fact it is not an immediate or pressing problem. However, I do appreciate that there may be anxiety for the future among those concerned, and I welcome this opportunity of saying that we are fully alive to the fact that if this problem is left untouched it will become a real one.
I like to think that these officers do not want to leave the Service. We certainly do not want to lose them. What then are we doing about the position? Firstly, as my hon. Friend knows, we have put in hand a comprehensive survey of the Education Branch. This is being carried out by an official committee which studies comparable problems in all branches of the Royal Air Force and reports to the Air Council. It is examining

the various tasks which fall to the Education Branch now and are likely to fall to it in the future, and is assessing the capabilities and qualifications which will be needed by the officers who are to carry them out. Once this is done we shall know how many people, with what sorts of qualifications, we should be recruiting; the conditions under which they should enter and the terms of service they should have. This study of the Education Branch will, in effect, form a new charter for the Branch. Such a long-term plan is essential if we are to reach a proper decision on what is to be done about the squadron leader—wing commander promotion problem which we are now discussing.
Besides this, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air said in a letter to my hon. Friend on 7th August of this year, we are examining the question of promotion in isolation from the general study of the Branch. I cannot now discuss the various proposals which we are considering, but let me assure my hon. Friend that I have taken note of the three suggestions which he has put forward. They will certainly be examined. I should not, however, like him to go away with the idea that they had not previously been thought of. I am quite confident that we shall find a way of maintaining a reasonable rate of promotion to wing commander for these officers. By "reasonable rate of promotion" I mean something of the same order as these officers have enjoyed up to now.
Here I must enter a caveat. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not suggest that everyone and anyone who enters any large organisation be it Service or civilian, can be given an absolute pledge of a particular chance of promotion beyond a certain point. After all, we are talking about rather senior appointments. Wing commander is a high and responsible rank, and it would be quite unusual for any organisation to tell young men on joining that they would, unconditionally and beyond question, have a fixed chance of getting such a senior position.
My hon. Friend has suggested that certain officers coming into the Branch were misled about their career prospects. The statement he quoted from an official pamphlet refers to "a substantial proportion" of officers being promoted to wing commanders; and that has in fact


happened up to now. These officers may also have discussed their prospects with senior officers of the Branch, and they certainly would have been told how promotion was running and the sort of chance they seemed likely to have. It would have been given quite informally as a general indication of prospects. In other words, at any such interview these officers were told the sort of thing which was likely to happen, not something which was guaranteed would happen to every officer who joined the branch.

Mr. E. Johnson: Will my hon. Friend say how he defines the word "substantial"—as one in four or one in two?

Mr. Soames: Something of the same order as has been maintained up to now. My hon. Friend has not quoted any example of a squadron leader being unfairly blocked, and he has been into this matter thoroughly. I feel that he has rather got it into his mind that this business is going terribly wrong, and he cannot be convinced otherwise. Surely, with the assiduity with which he has examined the problem, he would have found by now if there had been a great feeling within the Branch that promotion had not so far been going as it should. He has not in fact found that. When I speak of a reasonable chance of pro-

motion to wing commander, I mean something like what has been happening over the past three, four or five years.
As I understand it, my hon. Friend has not suggested that these officers have any grievance about what has happened so far. All he is saying at the moment is that it looks as though, if nothing is done about it, they are not likely to get the sort of career which people told them they were likely to have. I do not underrate their natural concern about their prospects, but I do ask my hon. Friend to have some confidence in us. As I say, this problem will not arise for two years. I say to him, with all sincerity, that we will do everything we can to ensure that a reasonable rate of promotion is maintained within the branch.
I hope that what I have said will help to convince my hon. Friend that we are taking the problem really seriously, as indeed we take all problems affecting the welfare and careers of personnel in the Royal Air Force. We are fully aware of the problem and of the difficulties which may arise; and I assure my hon. Friend that we have every intention of seeing that the officers concerned continue to get a fair deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.